Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DEE AND CLWYD RIVER AUTHORITY BILL

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

LANGSTONE MARINA BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Unemployment

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for reducing youth unemployment in the next two years.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): The Government will continue to pursue policies aimed at reducing unemployment for both adults and young people in Scotland, through regional incentives and measures to stimulate growth in the United Kingdom economy.

Mr. Hamilton: What kind of gobbledegook is that? Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this is probably the most squalid part of the increased unemployment problem in Scotland since the present Government came to power and that they have done precisely nothing about it? What new steps do the Government intend to take in the next 18 months? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not tell us that the figures have improved since last year. We know that,

because they were a damned sight worse last year than they were three years ago.

Mr. Monro: If the hon. Gentleman reads HANSARD tomorrow he will see that my answer was clear and straightforward. The hon. Gentleman will know, but he tries to escape the fact, that the trend is downwards. I am not trying to dodge the issue that unemployment among young people is serious. We have brought forward regional policies to help this very matter. In the short term we have brought forward the award scheme with which we have encouraged training boards to proceed, and we have also brought forward the Government's Vocational Training Scheme which has been extended to include young people in limited skill courses. We have grant-aided the experimental scheme by the National Association of Youth Clubs—more commonly known as the Community Industry Scheme—which is helping and working quite well.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: As regards the Community Industry Scheme, while recognising that this is not a cure for unemployment may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is consulted by his right hon. Friend on the need to develop this idea in Scotland where there are only two centres? Will he use his influence to extend what is an excellent scheme, bearing in mind that many of us recognise that there are problems in what one does with these young people at the end of the training period? We want to be reasonable about this.

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. We in the Scottish Office are in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment who will shortly be making an announcement.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the Minister will not seek to give an answer which reeks of complacency. He will appreciate that in January of this year, taking the whole educational session, there will be a reduction in the number of children leaving school of more than 40,000. As they did not come on to the labour market in January it should have been very much easier for those who were already unemployed to get a job. It must be very disappointing for the Secretary of


State that we have the highest proportion of school leavers unemployed for any area in the country and that overall the unemployment figure is the second highest in the post-war period, amounting to nearly 130,000.

Mr. Monro: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I said this was a serious situation. I shall not try to dodge the issue, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take the point that unemployment is 22 per cent. down on what it was a year ago and that the trend is encouraging.

Mr. Ross: The figure is bound to be lower as children are not leaving school and going on to the labour market.

Mr. Hamilton: Answer that.

Edinburgh Opera House

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with Edinburgh Corporation on the financial arrangements for the new Opera House.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I have written to Edinburgh Corporation outlining the circumstances in which I would be prepared to make a formal offer of grant towards the capital cost of a project on the lines of that described in the revised summary brief which it sent me.

Mr. Dalyell: How is it proposed to set about choosing a design team for the new Opera House?

Mr. Campbell: That is a matter for Edinburgh Corporation. As regards the letter that I have written to the corporation outlining the Government's latest position, because the reports in the Press today were necessarily abbreviated and could be misleading on some of the points I am arranging for the full text of the Department's letter to be made available in the Library.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I welcome this move, but what time scale has the right hon. Gentleman in mind? Is there a limit or any period during which the grant must be or may be payable?

Mr. Campbell: My main concern is that the work should start as soon as possible, consistent with good design.

North Sea Oil

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what latest assessment he has made of the effect on the Scottish economy of the discovery of oil in the North Sea; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: North Sea oil activities have already given rise to some 3,000 jobs in Scotland, and projects announced so far have potential for a further 7,000 jobs over the next three to four years. Scotland will also benefit substantially from the supporting infrastructure investment being provided. The measures announced on 16th January, including the establishment of a Scottish Petroleum Office, will provide an effective base for stimulating industrial development in Scotland related to the new discoveries of oil.

Mr. MacArthur: That is encouraging progress, but does my right hon. Friend agree that current estimates and comment are based too much on prospects until 1980 and too little on what may be large untapped reserves still to be explored to the north and west of these islands?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, Sir. The Government have made no attempt to estimate beyond 1980, seven years ahead, because beyond that there are too many unpredictable factors. But there could be a great deal more oil flowing in the years beyond 1980, because there are large areas still to be explored around the north and west as well as in the North Sea.

Mr. Grimond: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any geographical estimates, for instance, of how many jobs there might be in Shetland? As it is the Government's policy to get offices out of London and to increase employment in Scotland, why is not the whole of the new office concerned with petroleum in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: If the oil companies move their headquarters out of London to Scotland—and I would do anything to encourage them—the headquarters of the new petroleum body could be moved north, but to meet the present situation we have set up a Scottish Petroleum Office in Glasgow. We should not under-


estimate the effectiveness of that office in the future.
As regards the right hon. Gentleman's first point, it is impossible to estimate accurately the number of jobs in Shetland and areas where exploration is now taking place, but it is clear that there will be a lot of activity there.

Mr. Doig: Is the Secretary of State aware that by 1980 275 supply vessels will be needed for the North Sea oil companies? Will he treat that need in the same way as the Government treat advance factories and authorise the building of advance supply ships for the area, keeping in mind that in my area and other areas on the East Coast there are likely to be large-scale redundancies within the next week or two?

Mr. Campbell: I am very much aware of the growing market in the oil rig servicing sector, including new vessels. It was for that reason that we acted so quickly last summer to enable the harbour of refuge at Peterhead to become a servicing harbour for the purpose. I am doing everything I can to encourage Scottish shipbuilders as well as other industry to tender for that kind of work where appropriate. The hon. Gentleman's point is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and I shall make sure that note is taken of it.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Has my right hon. Friend studied the IMEG report, particularly its proposal for licensing agreements and partnership arrangements between British firms, and, in particular, American companies to gain experience of the new technologies required in the North Sea? Will he tell us more about that?

Mr. Campbell: I and my right hon. Friends who are responsible are considering the recommendations in the IMEG report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has already made an initial announcement about our reactions to it.
On technology, I have said before that there is no reason why we in Scotland should not before long ourselves become the experts in the technology needed in North Sea conditions and then be able to export it overseas as new areas come into exploration.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Why did the Government dodge the main recommendation of the IMEG report about the establishment of the petroleum service industries? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman go further and set up a State holding company to deal with services and provisions for the industry?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has already had the matter explained to him in a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. But one more reason is that it would have required legislation, which would have competed with other legislation passing through the House.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: We will give the Government time.

Mr. Campbell: We were told that the small Bill concerning Peterhead would go through quickly but we had considerable difficulty in this House. I can assure the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) that there are many different views, even on the Opposition benches, about what kind of agency there should be, the kind of powers it should have, and what kind of money it should have to spend. Any idea that that kind of Bill could be found an early place in the legislative programme, or go through quickly, surprises me. We have acted quickly, without the need for new legislation.

Mr. Ross: The whole House, certainly those Scots who are interested, will agree with the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) that the potential of North Sea oil is tremendous. It is essential that our policies at this stage should be right, otherwise we may find ourselves compromised later. Will the right hon. Gentleman think again about setting up an agency of the kind my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) mentioned? The Secretary of State will have little or no trouble over legislation which is beneficial to the people of Scotland.

Mr. Campbell: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to read again what my right hon. Friend has said about the matter. He has already explained how the Government immediately translated the recommendations into the setting up


of a body and a Scottish Petroleum Office. Many suggestions have come to us for boards and agencies covering the oil industry, and possibly covering many other industries as well, and what sort of powers they should have. Naturally these are still for consideration. We wanted to be able to act quickly and set up a new system as soon as possible, and we have done it.

Thalidomide Children

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children suffering from the effects of the drug thalidomide are now living in Scotland; what is their average age; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Monro: The most recent survey undertaken by the Lady Hoare Trust indicates that there are upwards of 88 children affected and living in Scotland. Their average age is 11.
Special attention is given to these children by the various services concerned, namely the National Health Service, social security and local authority services, including social work and education. I am pleased to acknowledge the assistance also given by voluntary organisations. If my hon. Friend has any particular point in mind I shall be glad to write to him if he will let me have details.

Sir J. Gilmour: Is any extra expenditure involved in providing education facilities for the children? If so, do the Government help?

Mr. Monro: The vast majority of the children, I am glad to say, go to normal schools. The directors of education and the headmasters and headmistresses concerned watch these children very closely, and we are in touch with the education authorities about all disabled children.

Mr. Carmichael: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea how many of the 88 children are not likely to be eligible for compensation because they have not been officially medically certified as being deformed because of thalidomide? There are a number.

Mr. Monro: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point but I cannot give him figures. While negotiations between the Distillers Company and those involved

are continuing, it would be unwise for me to say anything about the matter.

Health Centre (Peebles)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland by what date he proposes to have constructed a health centre at Peebles.

Mr. Monro: I cannot make a forecast at this stage.

Mr. Steel: Is the Minister aware that the matter has been discussed for many years and that his answer will come as a great disappointment? Is he aware that both the War Memorial Hospital and the County Hospital in the town are severely out-of-date buildings?

Mr. Monro: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I think he will appreciate that we want to replace the two old hospitals he mentioned by a new one, but that is not yet in the building programme. Next month my officials will be meeting the regional hospital board to consider the situation. If the hospital is still to be a long way away, perhaps we could consider a method of advancing the health centre by itself.

Housing Finance

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress made in implementing the Housing Finance Act 1972.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Act is now being implemented almost everywhere in Scotland. I expect to receive local inquiry reports in the next few days in relation to six small burghs. In addition there is the large burgh of Clydebank. In that case the Court of Session yesterday made an order requiring the town council within seven days to instruct its officials to prepare a rebate scheme and proposals for rent increases in accordance with the Act.

Mr. Taylor: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that those tenants who are entitled to rent rebates or allowances and have not received them because of delay in operating the Act will have those rebates and allowances backdated by the authorities concerned?

Mr. Campbell: I cannot make a forecast for the future, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the lower-paid and the unemployed in Clydebank will benefit from the new scheme, which will make them better off and have to pay less rent than under the present scheme being operated by Clydebank town council.

Mr. McElhane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one part of the Act has caused a great deal of misery among old-age pensioners, namely, the provision which has the consequence that the social security office stops paying rent allowances? The Government did not bother to inform old-age pensioners, so that rent allowances have now stopped yet rent demands are coming from, for example, the SSHA, which was not geared for the change. Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that much unnecessary hardship and misery was caused to old-age pensioners through lack of information from the Government?

Mr. Campbell: There was no lack of information provided by the Government, but there was a certain amount of misinformation put round by others. I shall look into the point, but I believe that in Glasgow it may have been connected with the late implementation of the Act in respect of Glasgow. Again, however, I must point out as regards Clydebank, which is the one large burgh which has not yet started implementing the Act, that those on small household incomes will do better under the new rent and rebate scheme than under the present scheme being operated by Clydebank.

Mr. MacArthur: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, if and when it becomes necessary, he will use to the full his statutory powers in order to demonstrate to local authorities and everyone else that no one in Britain can flout the law with impunity?

Mr. Campbell: I have already carried out the procedures under the 1947 Act, which apply when local authorities fail to implement Acts passed by the House, as fast as those procedures allow, and firmly. I intend to continue carrying out properly the legislation—in particular the 1947 Act—which governs the situation.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: What qualifications, if any, will be applied to the operation of the Act by the Prime Minister's

statement at Lancaster House earlier this month and the proposals made to try to alleviate the difficulties arising from inflation?

Mr. Campbell: The proposal is to raise the needs allowance by £3·50. This is an adjustment of the rent rebates scheme. The making of such adjustments from time to time, as required, was envisaged; this one is to be made in the near future.

Mr. Buchan: How does the Secretary of State square in his conscience what he is now doing with two other facts—the promise to grant freedom to local authorities, and his encouragement in the past to the city of Edinburgh to flout the law in relation to fee-paying schools?

Mr. Campbell: I have repudiated that second point several times in the House, and I challenge the hon. Gentleman to find any occasion when I have done as he suggests. As regards the first point, the whole question of the Act was debated fully by the House of Commons before it was passed, and the granting of freedom to local authorities has never extended to allowing them to defy Acts of Parliament.

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the sums of money shown in the housing accounts attributable to capital repayments for the year 1971–72 for (a) large burghs, (b) small burghs, (c) counties, and (d) the cities of Aberdeen, Dundee, Glasgow and Edinburgh, respectively.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): This information is not yet available for 1971–72, except for the four cities. I am publishing the figures for the cities in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that informative reply. Will he confirm that the amount paid out in capital repayments is only one-fifth of the amount paid out in interest payments? In view of this disgraceful imposition on the people who pay rent and rates to the local authorities, will the hon. Gentleman introduce a scheme of free loans for local authority house building?

Mr. Younger: I think that the figure of one-fifth is not far out, though I cannot be exact about it without checking.
To deal with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the subject of interest payments is one which affects anyone who makes capital expenditure of any kind, including capital expenditure on housing. The new arrangements in the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 for the first time produce a subsidy arrangement which is responsive to changes in interest rates. Where interest rates change, it is immediately responsive to them.

Following is the information:


Housing Revenue Accounts—Amounts of debt redemption and sinking fund provision






£


Aberdeen
…
…
…
606,000


Dundee
…
…
…
792,000


Edinburgh
…
…
…
525,000


Glasgow
…
…
…
2,791,000

Steel Industry

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications for long-term industrial development in Scotland of the Government's decisions on the future of the steel industry.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the consequences for long-term industrial development in Scotland of the Government's decision concerning the steel industry.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The plans for the steel industry in Scotland represent an expansion of 25 per cent. in 10 years of steel-making capacity. This expansion will provide a range of finished steel products for steel-using industries and thus assist industrial development in Scotland.

Mr. Strang: Is the Secretary of State aware that the current steel plan could sabotage prospects for industrial expansion in Scotland? Does he recognise that an expanding and diversified steel industry is fundamental to the development of the engineering industry in general and the offshore industry of Scotland in particular, especially in view of the basing point pricing system of the Common Market? What will the right hon. Gentleman do in face of the fact that the current steel plans are unacceptable to the Scottish TUC, the Scottish Council

(Development and Industry) and the people of Scotland as a whole?

Mr. Campbell: I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. By advancing the steel-making capacity by 1 million tons—that is, 25 per cent.—the programme for the next 10 years meets the requirements of the steel-using industries as well as of the Scottish steel industry itself. Some of us hoped that there might be the possibility of something quite new and different in Scotland, but I must point out that this expansion compares extremely favourably with the increase of only 200,000 tons in steel-making capacity during the nearly six years of the Labour Government.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Have the new investment plans been approved by the ECSC? Second, when may we have an indication of the effect of the new Common Market pricing system on steel prices throughout Scotland? For example, shall we find that steel in Dundee and Aberdeen and places far away from steel-producing areas will cost considerably more than it does at present?

Mr. Campbell: On the first point, I do not think that approval was required for this programme. Second, the basing point system, which has been arranged so that there are a number of basing points in Scotland, should cover the matters about which my hon. Friend is worried.

Mr. James Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us where the money will be spent in Scotland out of the £400 million programme which the British Steel Corporation has submitted to the Government? Second, recalling that the Government have told us that they will bring other jobs to replace those which are being lost in the steel industry, will the right hon. Gentleman say where those jobs are to come from, since we have redundancies now which the Minister does not yet know about and, what is more, the jobs we are getting are not even offsetting the redundancies?

Mr. Campbell: The way in which the investment of £400 million will go over Scotland in the next 10 years would call for a catalogue which I could not produce now, but I shall ask the British


Steel Corporation to provide the hon. Gentleman with the details as it has worked them out. We have been concerned with the main projects, the expansion of Ravenscraig, the iron ore terminal and other major investments, and the details of all the investments in little bits of the plan would require a catalogue. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman can have those details, and I shall pass his request on.
The redundancies have been stated by the corporation as being about 7,000 over the next five or six years, which is about the same as the number which have taken place over the past five or six years in Scotland. They are job losses rather than redundancies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Some of them will be dealt with by retirement and so on. The main point here is that in an industry in which there is to be a 25 per cent. expansion and which is being modernised—I am sure that all hon. Members agree that the open hearth furnaces are obsolescent—modernisation means a reduction in jobs.

Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the plan of which he speaks is at present in large measure a statement of intention. Will he ensure that the intention is realised in fact, and will he bear in mind that we require a substantial steel foundry to remain in Scotland, at the very least, and a substantial section of the special steels industry? Will he see to it that Scotland is not deprived of those sections of this important industry?

Mr. Campbell: This is a statement of an investment programme agreed with the British Steel Corporation by the Government, and there was considerable pressure from all sides, I think, for such a statement to be made as soon as possible. I take note of the other points which the hon. Gentleman makes. I have made clear that my concern is to have a steel industry in Scotland which can provide the wide range of products which the steel-using industries need. Apart from the problem of redundancies and loss of jobs in the steel industry itself, there is the effect on many other industries in which jobs can positively be created or lost, and I am very much aware of the matters which the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that the allocation to Scotland in the BSC investment programme is totally insufficient to guarantee an expanding economy for Scotland, and is he further aware that the basing point policy for rod steel will mean throwing hundreds of jobs to the wolves in Scotland? Have we not now arrived at the point where we should be thinking in terms of a Scottish steel corporation of our own in orler to protect the industry in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: If an expansion of 25 per cent. over 10 years is to have such dire effects, I can only conclude that the expansion under the Labour Government of 200,000 tons must have been disastrous. During that time the Labour Government nationalised the steel industry and they had every opportunity then to produce a Scottish steel corporation had they wanted to do so.

Fish Farming

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will seek powers to extend the grants under the Farm Improvement Scheme to fish farmers.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I do not consider that agricultural grants schemes are appropriate for this purpose, but I shall keep under review the needs of fish farming.

Mr. Brewis: In view of the disappointing reply, will my hon. Friend say whether discretionary payments for such a purpose can be made under any other legislation, such as the Industry Act?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes. I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point because fish farming can be considered for selective assistance under Part II of the Industry Act.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of concern in Scotland about the suggestion that head-age payments will be replaced by grants related to the improvement of marginal or hill farms? Will he confirm that such plans do not exist?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am not aware of fish farming being eligible at the moment for headage payments.

Hunterston

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Hunterston.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have at present no plans to do so. I have examined the peninsula from the air and my hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, and the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are visiting the power station on 9th February 1973.

Mr. Lambie: May I thank the Secretary of State for that reply? I hope that he will take the opportunity of accomping his hon. Friends when they visit the power station. Will he confirm that his attitude to the Chevron Oil Company's application has changed following its announcement this week that it is still interested in oil and petro-chemical developments in the Hunterston area?

Mr. Campbell: I was at the opening of the Hunterston A power station and I have always taken an interest in it. But I believe that in his supplementary the hon. Member was referring to the rest of the peninsula and possible development there, and that is something which is best examined closely from the air, which I have done. At present the main industry there is farming and the area consists mostly of fields. As planning Minister for Scotland I cannot, of course, comment upon the merit of any particular project. I can confirm, however, that I have just been informed that the Chevron Company wishes consideration to be given to a modified application, although I have no details of it yet.

Sir F. Maclean: On his next visit to Hunterston, where he is always most welcome, will my right hon. Friend land his helicopter, or whatever he comes in, and make a point of listening carefully to the views of the local inhabitants?

Mr. Campbell: I can assure my hon. Friend that in so far as my responsibilities as planning Minister allow me under the Acts, I take into account the views of all those concerned.

Mr. Douglas: Is the Secretary of State aware that, while we might welcome an oil refinery development at Hunterston,

we are extremely perturbed about the attitude of BP at Grangemouth where the anticipated expansion of an additional 9 million tons capacity is being consistently held up? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to have an urgent meeting with BP officials to ensure that the expansion is in train before the development of the Forties field in 1975?

Mr. Campbell: I am aware that when BP revealed its pipeline proposals for the Forties field it said that it was considering expansion of its Grangemouth refinery. No doubt the company is also bearing in mind the possibility of refineries by other companies in Scotland.

Sir F. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now publish the report of the Hunterston Development Corporation.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The question of publication is essentially for the company itself and its consultants.

Sir F. Maclean: Surely this report was paid for out of public funds. Is not my right hon. Friend aware that both the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) and I are most disappointed at the delay in publication, because we both feel that we are proved to have been right all along?

Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend appears to be anticipating the report. The Government for their part have assumed that the report will be published when it has been completed.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the report has been delayed because of the recent announcement by the BSC, which is a big factor in the matter of the positioning of future industry which the report was commissioned to evaluate? Can he say how many planning applications are before him in relation to the area covered by the Hunterston Development Corporation remit?

Mr. Campbell: I cannot give reasons why the report is not yet completed, but what the hon. Gentleman has said could well be one of them. On the second point, two applications are before me, one for the ore terminal and one for a refinery and associated industry.

Edinburgh Airport

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement regarding his decision on future developments at Edinburgh Airport linked with the report of the public inquiry that was submitted to him.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: My decision to grant outline planning permission to the British Airports Authority for its proposed new runway and terminal complex was announced in a letter of 26th January to the authority. I have placed in the Library copies of the letter and of the inquiry report.

Mr. Eadie: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on reaching what was, contrary to what many people thought, not an easy decision? Nevertheless he has reached the right decision because it means so much for employment prospects in Midlothian, Edinburgh and South-East Scotland generally. Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us the time scale for the expedition of the development of the runway and terminal buildings?

Mr. Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments. It was an exceedingly difficult decision to take and those who were critical about the time factor will recognise when they see the reporter's report that it was a matter which had to be dealt with carefully and fully. The reporter found objection to both the alignment proposals, including the Cramond Association's proposals, and his alternative suggestions had to be looked into fully and urgently. There is now a right of appeal to the Court of Session against my decision on certain limited grounds and the time limit there is six weeks.

Mr. Ross: Bearing in mind all the factors involved, I believe that the Secretary of State is due our congratulations for a courageous decision and one which will be to the benefit of the entire city of Edinburgh.

Mr. Campbell: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, particularly because when the subject was raised in the House before Christmas I was unable to say anything about what was in the report.

Local Government Reorganisation (Fife)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has had regarding Fife County becoming a region of local government.

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend is continuing to receive representations about local government reform in Fife, mainly from individuals in the county. No fresh evidence on the matter has been brought to light.

Mr. Hunter: Has the Minister taken note of the recently conducted poll in Kirkcaldy where 97·3 per cent. of those who voted rejected the splitting of Fife? Regardless of whether it was right or wrong to conduct the poll, 2,723 people out of 2,798 wanted Fife as a region. Does that not impress him? Will he not agree that the people of Scotland have not had a proper opportunity of exercising their democratic rights regarding the far-reaching decisions on local government reform?

Mr. Younger: On the first point, I shall of course pay the closest attention to all representations made on the subject. It is hotly controversial for various interests in Scotland generally, and in Fife. I cannot agree with the hon. Member on the second point when he says that there has been an inadequate opportunity for the people of Scotland to express their views on the subject. We have been discussing it for about 10 years and I think that everyone feels that it is now time to get on with the job.

Sir J. Gilmour: What proportion of the letters which have been received by the Secretary of State were in favour of the splitting of Fife?

Mr. Younger: I cannot give my hon. Friend the figures for that but we have had representations from both sides on the subject.

Mr. Gourlay: Would not the Minister condemn the action of the Fife County Council in holding this referendum in the town of Kirkcaldy, thereby interfering


with the rights of the elected representatives of the area? Will he bear in mind that out of 5,000 postcards delivered, only 2,800 were returned, with the expected answer to the loaded question on the postcard?

Mr. Younger: I note very carefully what the hon. Gentleman said. It is not for me to condemn or otherwise to comment upon the activities of particular individuals, but I am glad that everyone concerned on both sides in this issue has the opportunity to express a view fully and freely.

Children in Care

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of children who have been placed by Scottish local authorities in local authority children's homes in England and Wales.

Mr. Monro: Detailed information about such placements is not collected, but the percentage is estimated to be very small.

Mr. Douglas: Does not the Under-Secretary agree that it is unfortunate that we do not have this information, because if children from Scottish homes have to be sent to local authority places in England and Wales considerable inconvenience may be caused? Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain the reasons for these children having been placed south of the border.

Mr. Monro: There must be a special reason, because at the moment rather less than 1 per cent. of these children go to England and Wales and this is normally only done when it is to the advantage of the children to be near relatives.

Housing

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new houses were constructed in Scotland in 1972.

Mr. Younger: The figure is 31,990.

Dr. Mabon: Does that reply mean a fall of over 12,000 as against the last full year of the Labour Government and the calendar year 1970, which included some months of Labour Government, and represents a fall of 9,000 as against 1971?

Since the alibi of time has now been removed from Ministers, does the Under-Secretary agree that all our warnings of a collapse in the housing programme have, alas, proved to be terribly true and that the whole volume of the programme has gone down by over one-fifth without very much sign of its going up? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the figure is likely to be this year?

Mr. Younger: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the figures. Completions for this year are a direct reflection of approvals given in the last years of his own Government, and he might like to explain himself why the Labour Government allowed the approval figures to go down from 27,000 in 1968 to 26,000 in 1969 and only 17,000 in 1970. He might also bear in mind that one of the strange things about houses in Scotland is that they have to be started before they can be finished.

Mr. Edward Taylor: We can fully understand the points made by my hon. Friend, and he is quite right to avoid specific targets. Does he think that we will have more houses or fewer houses built in 1973 than in 1972?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not believe that it is a significant and important factor in the housing programme to set future targets which cannot be carried out, just as they were not carried out by the party opposite. But my hon. Friend will be glad to hear that the number of approvals we are now putting through represents a very considerable improvement. As a result of the encouragement we have given to local authorities, 28,567 public sector houses were approved in 1972, which is 5,000 more than in 1971 and over 7,500 more than in 1970.

Mr. Baxter: As many local authorities are now getting to the fulfilment of their housing programmes and it is now more important than ever that the design and general appearance of houses should be brought into keeping with good taste, will the Under-Secretary see that more care is exercised by his Department to ensure that such things as the design and amenity of houses are given serious consideration?

Mr. Younger: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are two main


priorities which are increasing in importance: first, what he describes as the importance of providing better homes for everyone in Scotland and, secondly, any increase in improvement activity. I am sure that he will be as glad as I am that in 1972 we had the improvement, with the aid of grant, of nearly 49,000 houses, compared with 15,000 in 1969.

Mr. McEIhone: Does not the Minister agree that one reason for the poor figures he has announced is the abolition of the Land Commission and that another is the high price of land as a result of the inflationary policies of the Government?

Mr. Younger: I am afraid that, not for the first time, I could not disagree more with the hon. Member. The very last thing that would help the building of houses in Scotland would be any resurrection of that unlamented body the Land Commission. In the second place, there does not appear to be any significant increase in the land factor in relation to the price of houses in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: We have a serious drop from the 1970 figure of 44,000 to 31,000 bearing in mind housing conditions in Scotland. How many houses does the Minister hope to complete in the current year?

Mr. Younger: I do not think it is of advantage to set targets, as the previous Government found with the targets they set without the slightest hope of achieving them. The right hon. Gentleman will also acknowledge that the initiation of local authority programmes is in the hands of local authorities, and we have given local authorities every possible encouragement, to build as many as they can. The right hon. Gentleman will also no doubt notice that the building under our control through the Scottish Special Housing Association and the new town corporations has been showing an encouraging trend, and private house completions are at a record level.

Mr. Ross: The Minister has no alibi for these figures, and certainly no alibi for this year. Why does he not tell us, on the basis of houses under construction, when they were started and how many will be completed this year? That should not be a guess.

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there is a

relationship between the number of houses under construction and the number likely to be completed, but I am content to leave it that from the high level of houses under construction at the moment I expect to see a very significant improvement this year in the number of completions, and local authorities will get every encouragement from me. We hope to see record levels in private house completions as well.

Dr. Mabon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment. "These guilty men."

Bellshill Town Map

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he received the Bellshill town map; what proposals he has made; and what financial assistance will be given to implement it.

Mr. Younger: The town map for Bells-hill was submitted by Lanark County Council in May 1969. A public inquiry into objections was held in April 1971; my right hon. Friend received the report on it in January 1972; and in April he issued his decision generally approving the land uses proposed. An application for planning grants has just been received and is being examined.

Mr. Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but as he has stated to us that the plan has been there since 1969 it means in essence four years lost in implementing it. Is he aware that not only in Bellshill but in other parts of my constituency and beyond it the local authority is very much concerned that this town map should be implemented as soon as possible? Will he tell the local authorities that he is prepared to give them every possible assistance in expediting implementation?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he says. I know that he has a very close interest in the subject. He will know, I think, that when the Bellshill town map was submitted, several town maps were submitted to the Lanarkshire County Council which was, naturally, not able to service more than one major inquiry at a time. This meant


that inquiries had to take place in sequence. There was a further delay at Bellshill due to a misunderstanding by objectors about the date of the inquiry. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will give every possible attention as soon as possible to the applications we now receive.

Scottish Council on Crime

Mr. John Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work of the Scottish Council on Crime.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In consultation with my right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate the council has carried out an initial review, mainly of measures for the prevention of crime. This review has identified subjects for more detailed study.

Mr. Smith: Is not the hon. Gentleman telling us that so far there have been no practical results from the setting up of the Scottish Council on Crime? Is he aware that the only way in which he will dispel the widespread scepticism that this was a piece of Tory Party window-dressing is for people to see practical results in the near future which can be said to emanate from the council?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: First, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of the council. Second, he is very unjust to those eminent people who are members of it. The purpose of the council is to carry out this review. It has identified certain subjects which it will go into in depth. I believe that it is going about its job in the right way and that it will achieve success.

Mr. Edward Taylor: When did the council first meet, and how many meetings has it had?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It first met in April last year, only nine months ago. It has had five meetings since then.

Mr. William Hannan: Is one of the aspects being considered by the council the admitted relationship of the excess consumption of alcohol with the commission of crimes of violence?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's interest in this subject. It is one of those being studied in a number of research projects in Scotland. It is not a specific topic which has been identified by the council for further study. But one of the topics being studied is the prevention of acts of violence.

Mr. Russell Johnston: How shall we be able to measure the achievement of the council? Will it ever produce a report? If so, when? The Minister used the phrase "only nine months", suggesting that that was a short time. In my view it is a rather long time. When shall we know whether the council has achieved anything?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: One of the main purposes of the council is to co-ordinate the efforts and work of people in the different services in Scotland involved in the prevention of and the fight against crime. The present stage of reviewing the whole subject is not one which is appropriate for a report. However, the second stage, on the studies undertaken by the council, is a matter which the council might consider as the subject for a report.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: What are the subjects which have been identified as being worthy of further study?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have referred already to the prevention of acts of violence. Then there is the reduction of the opportunity for acquisitive crime. The third relates to the enforcement of fines.

Mr. Lawson: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the current edition of the Government's publication "Social Trends" which throws grave doubts on the validity of many of the figures relating to crime, especially as regards their meaningfulness and the possibility of comparing like with like? Is not the hon. Gentleman greatly dissatisfied with the crime statistics that we have at the moment?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The council has been looking at the statistics. In general they are not unsatisfactory. But if the hon. Gentleman cares to draw my attention to a specific aspect of them, I shall be pleased to hear from him.

Divorce Law

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what complaints he has received in the last three months concerning the need to reform the divorce law in order to bring it more into harmony with that of England; and what was the nature of his reply.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Since 1st November 1972 my right hon. Friend has received one letter from a Member of Parliament and four letters from members of the public on this subject. The writers have been told that divorce law reform raises moral and social issues on which opinion is still sharply divided and which, in the Government's view, are more appropriate to a Private Member's Bill than to Government-sponsored legislation.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman realise how very unsatisfactory that answer is? Is not it the case that the Scottish Law Commission, the Church of Scotland, the Law Society, vast numbers of people and hon. Members on both sides of the House, as well as the Scottish Office itself, want to bring the law in Scotland into line with that in England? It is deplorable that the Scottish Office should offer me help to draft a Private Member's Bill at the same time as another member of the same Cabinet refuses to guarantee time for a Bill to be debated on a free vote of the House. It is absurd.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the feelings which are strongly held in certain quarters. But he ignores the very strong feelings held by certain individual Members of this House, as previous attempts to introduce legislation of this kind have shown. As for the attitude of the Government, there is nothing unusual in what we are doing. It compares with what the Labour Government did in relation to legislation of this nature.

Mr. Grimond: I agree that there are precedents for the Government's action, but are there not also precedents for the Government making time available for a measure of this kind? I can remember other Bills which aroused tremendous passions on both sides and which involved great questions of moral decision, but the Government found time to debate them.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, questions of time are matters for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. What the Government have done so far is in no way inconsistent with what has been done before.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is this the kind of subject which the Scottish Council on Crime might be asked to consider?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I must confess that I fail to see the direct connection. Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain it to me after Questions.

Mr. John Smith: How long will the Government go on evading their responsibility in this matter? Are we to understand that as long as the present Government remain in office they will ignore the opinion of the Law Commission, the Law Society, the Church of Scotland and other bodies? If views are strongly held by some hon. Members, why not make it subject to a free vote in this House?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The vehicle of Private Member's legislation is the correct way. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has received the leave of the House to introduce a Bill.

Mr. Robert Hughes: How long will the Government evade their responsibilities to thousands of families and children in Scotland who are suffering personal misery because the law is so different? Will not the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is wrong for him to try to escape this responsibility by blaming the procedures of this House for the delay?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There are difficulties, and the Scottish Law Commission has drawn attention to them. However, the hon. Gentleman is grossly exaggerating the problems arising from this matter. I ask him for more evidence on the way in which this difference in law causes difficulties. I appeal to him to respect the deeply held views of certain individual Members of this House as shown by previous debates on this matter.

Planning Officers

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many emergency planning officers are now employed by local authorities in Scotland.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Eleven Scottish civil defence authorities have indicated that they are employing or have engaged an emergencies planning officer: 15 authorities at present employ civil defence planning officers on a part-time basis and the remaining seven authorities have vacancies.

Sir J. Gilmour: Can my hon. Friend confirm that after the reorganisation of local government the provisions for the use of these officers will continue?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes. Indeed, the authorities which will form the parts of that new region for home defence purposes are being encouraged to consult together and, where appropriate, to make joint appointments of emergency planning officers. We attach considerable importance to them.

Oil Refineries

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the applications he is considering for planning permission to construct oil refineries in Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Two.

Mr. Lambie: What information has the Secretary of State about whether BP is to proceed with the proposed extension of its oil refinery at Grangemouth? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that BP has made secret representations to the Department of Trade and Industry to stop ORSI and the Chevron oil companies from building oil refineries at Hunterston in Ayrshire?

Mr. Campbell: There is no question of stopping companies from building refineries. These matters come forward as applications for planning permission but, as the hon. Gentleman knows—as the House has been informed previously—the question of sites is also being looked into, to see which sort of sites in Scotland might be appropriate for oil refineries.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In considering such applications, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the ratio between taxpayer subsidisation for building oil refineries and the number of jobs created is really highly unfavourable?

Mr. Campbell: I know that this is a point which my hon. Friend has raised

previously, but none the less, oil refineries in certain circumstances can provide a spin-off of jobs in associated industry, and this is the kind of point which also has to be borne in mind for industrial redevelopment in Scotland.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: As there are only two applications, will the Secretary of State say to which sites they relate?

Mr. Campbell: One is at Hunterston and, of course, there has also been the application at Invergordon, where planning permission was granted.

Sir F. Maclean: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a British oil refinery or the extension of a British oil refinery at Grangemouth is a far more attractive proposition for Scotland than a foreign oil refinery at Hunterston?

Mr. Campbell: As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot comment on the merits of cases because they come before me as planning Minister for Scotland.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Has not the Secretary of State called in these applications, and is it not also the case that in view of the information from the Chevron Oil Company yesterday he may be obliged to call it in in that case too? What procedure does the right hon. Gentleman intend to follow in view of the very lengthy inquiry, the longest ever in Scotland, involving that same company and the whole peninsula? What does he intend to do now that he has received the applications? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall deeply resent a situation arising in any part of Scotland whereby we export crude oil from Scotland instead of refining it at home?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman knows that as planning Minister I cannot comment on the merits of applications which are before me. But I also hope that Hunterston will be used for the best possible advantage of Scottish industry. Therefore, I encourage as many applications for suitable industry as possible to be put forward. But as planning Minister I have to consider under the proper procedures whether the application can be approved. On the last point on calling in, under my planning decision of two years ago at Hunterston every


individual application will have to go to the Secretary of State—that is, to myself or my successor.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Under-Secretary of State

for the Environment has come to the House especially in order to answer Question No. 38, would you, Mr. Speaker, allow him to do so, because we all want to know what the diver is doing in New Palace Yard?

Mr. Speaker: I have heard no such request.

LIFE PEERS BILL

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Dick Leonard: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that life peers should cease to be entitled to the rank and style of barons.
I would not pretend to the House that I think that this is the most important Bill that will come before us during the present Session. Indeed, I withdrew the Bill on the date on which I originally intended to introduce it, on 19th December, in order to enable my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), whom I am delighted to see present in the Chamber, to protect the rights of old-age pensioners to receive their £10 Christmas bonus. I willingly made way for her then in the belief that pensioners should come before peers. I am delighted that as a direct result of her initiative the Government introduced a Bill to ensure that pensioners would not be deprived of their bonus by the operation of the earnings rule.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is straying a little.

Mr. Leonard: I propose to proceed to my Bill. Though the Bill is not of major importance, nor is it a trivial matter. Its passage would have two significant effects. Firstly, it would represent a small, but overdue, blow against social snobbery. Second, it would add to the effectiveness of the work of Parliament.
Before putting the case for the Bill, I want to make clear what the effect of its passage would be. The Bill does not seek to alter the powers or the membership of the other place. It does not seek to abolish the peerage or hereditary titles. It does not seek to abolish the honours list. There may be a strong case for all of those objectives. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] Together with many of my hon. Friends, I believe that there is such a case, but those objectives are not the concern of the Bill. I rely, perhaps, upon my hon. Friends to propose amendments in Committee to produce an appropriate schedule in that respect.
The sole effect of the Bill as at present drafted would be that life peers and their

spouses, both those who have already been created and those who will be appointed in the future, would be known henceforth as "Mr. and Mrs." rather than "Lord and Lady". It is not necessary for me to make a case for ordinary mortals to be named "Mr. and Mrs.". Rather, the onus is on those such as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)—I regret that he is not in the Chamber today; he has been good enough to describe the Bill as an "impudent proposition"—to make a case for calling people anything else.

Mr. John Smith: Particularly him.

Mr. Leonard: What is the purpose of creating life peers? It is not to elevate certain individuals above their fellows. That might have been the objective of the mediaeval kings who created the first earls and barons. But the Life Peerage Act 1958 had a more modest and practical object. It was to recruit men and women who would be serious legislators, who would serve Parliament in another place, in a similar fashion, though with a more restricted rôle, to the way in which hon. Members of this House seek to serve those we represent.
If this was what was meant—and the debates on the Life Peerage Act make plain that this was the intention of Parliament—it has been a hindrance and not a help that life peers have to encumber themselves with ludicrous appendages to their names. It is my contention that the compulsory use of titles has reduced the contribution which life peers can make to the work of Parliament.
It cannot be denied that many peers have found titles discomforting. Herbert Morrison wrote in his autobiography of his
lifelong personal dislike of the idea of Herbert Morrison becoming a Lord".
The adoption of hyphens by Lord Ritchie-Calder, the late Lord Francis-Williams and Lord George-Brown, indicate the reluctance with which these men have shed their personas as commoners. Some others who would have had excellent contributions to make as members of the Upper House have declined to serve because they could not face the prospect of being addressed as "My Lord." The Press mentioned one


or two examples during the period of the previous Government. It is not only members of the Labour Party who find the business of titles distasteful. One wonders why, for example, Mr. Harold Macmillan has not chosen to serve in another place where he would undoubtedly have had an outstanding contribution to make.
It has been argued, on the other hand, that the prospect of a title is a positive inducement to some people to serve in the Upper House, and that if life peers were called "Mr." people would no longer wish to serve there. I would readily grant that there are some people, perhaps many people, who would like a title and who would find this an attraction if they were appointed to the other House, but I question whether that type of person would have a worthwhile contribution to make to Parliament if he were to become a member of another place.
Some of my colleagues have been disappointed that I have not included in the Bill hereditary titles. I, personally, would be happy to see the end of all titles, but I thought it better, as a beginning, to concentrate on life peers as they represent more of a practical problem. No hereditary peers have been created since 1964, and it seems extremely unlikely that any more will be created in future. It would certainly be undesirable if they were. But the pool of life peers is regularly replenished, and in so far as titles are a disincentive it is future life peers who will be affected. In any case, hereditary peers already have the right under the Peerage Act to renounce their titles. I hope that this custom will become increasingly a common feature in future.
If life peers wish to identify their rôle it will be open to them to put the letters LP after their names. No doubt some will prove to be longer players than others.
It is my belief that the continued creation of titles in 1973 is increasingly seen to be an anachronism both in Britain and throughout the democratic world. The new Australian Government are doing away with honours, and even in India, where society is markedly more deferential than in countries in the West, titles were

abolished in 1971. Earlier this month we entered the European Economic Community. I believe that no barons have been created in any other of the EEC countries since before 1918—except in the musical comedies of Franz Lehar. I feel that in modern times the proper place for lords and ladies is in comic opera, in Gilbert and Sullivan as well as Franz Lehar, rather than in the second chambers of modern parliaments.
I hope that hon. Members will agree with me and that the House will consent to the introduction of the Bill.

3.44 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Under the rules of the House one can speak on a Motion for leave to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minute Rule only if one opposes the Bill. Therefore, formally, I put on record that I am opposing the Bill, although I do not think that it needs any opposition in words, for I have no doubt that it will founder. I doubt whether it will get much further than being allowed to be introduced, even if that.
The reason I want to speak on the motion is that the hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Herbert Morrison in support of his case, and I feel that it would be helpful in the circumstances for hon. Members to know that all the indications were that Mr. Herbert Morrison was attracted to titles because they were traditional and added strength to our traditions. I should like to put on record an incident which, I believe, can be confirmed by letters on the files of what was the Ministry of Works.
The Minister of Works previously had been known as His Majesty's First Commissioner of Works, a very attractive title. Mr. Herbert Morrison, who was a leader and a great authority in the Labour Party, did not like that title being changed to Minister of Works, and he wrote about it to the then Minister of Works, Mr. Charles Key, whom many hon. Members will remember as a Member of this House—the late Mr. Charles Key. Mr. Herbert Morrison suggested to the then Minister of Works that it might be a good thing to revert to the ancient title, having in mind, obviously, the title, First Commissioner of Works. The letter was not unsympathetically received by Mr. Key, and he had the records looked up. But it so happened that Mr. Charles Key


rather enjoyed being called "Minister" and was not so attracted by the other title, which did not seem to indicate anything specific. He wrote back to Mr. Herbert Morrison that he had not a great deal of sympathy with the suggestion of reverting to the original title. He pointed out that the original title of the holder of that office was His Majesty's First Serjeant of the Plumbers. That title did not attract Mr. Herbert Morrison, because he had in mind the title, First Commissioner of Works.
I wanted to intervene only to say that, having that incident in mind, I do not think the hon. Member was right in naming Mr. Herbert Morrison as one who would have gone into the Lobby in support of his motion. Nor would anybody else who appreciates the traditions of this country and of this House. Does the hon. Member suggest that a judge sitting on the bench should not be addressed as "My Lord"? Why does he, as a Member of Parliament, allow himself to be called the "honourable Member" instead of "Mr."?
It is important to recognise that all these traditions have helped to make this country and this Parliament significant and worth while. They are all part of the fabric of our society and our life. Whether or not the hon. Member gets the leave he

seeks, I have no doubt that that is as far as his Bill will go. It should be stopped. I know that if one were to seek to stop it one would have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House—on the hon. Member's side as well as this, because there are lovers of tradition on those benches, too.
I rather think that the hon. Member's proposal was a little flippant, although he put it in a dignified way. My suggestion is that we should not allow it to go any further because, if we did, we should be undermining a tradition which, although in a somewhat indefinable way, is of value to this House and country.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Leonard, Mr. J. D. Dormand, Mr. John Grant, Mr. J. Grimond, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. John Mackie, Mr. David Marquand, Mr. John Parker and Mr. Phillip Whitehead.

LIFE PEERS (CHANGE OF STYLE AND RANK)

Bill to provide that life peers shall cease to be entitled to the rank and style of Barons, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd March and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS AID

3.47 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: The proceedings which have just terminated are not as irrelevant to to the business on the Consolidated Fund as might at first appear. In the first place, the House has in the last 15 minutes given more attention to a very worthy proposition for a Bill than it is likely to give to any particular bit of the estimates which, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, we are to consider now for the rest of the day and probably a large part of the night.
In his remarks just now the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls)—it was significant—spoke of the traditions of this place, saying that they made it different from other parliaments, and I think he implied that they made it superior in its effectiveness to other parliaments in the world. It is that attitude that this place has greater efficiency and competence in the normal function of a parliament, which ensures that in many respects we are not exactly different, and that cannot be better illustrated than by the way we supervise or fail to supervise public expenditure.
The question now before the House is that the Government should be allowed to spend £591 million, which is not chicken feed for any Government, and the question is that the Government not only should be allowed to spend that total of money but should be allowed to expend it on a number of items the details of which are all in the Estimates. I have said before, and I shall continue to say, from these benches that the manner in which this House in the Chamber and its Committees attempts to supervise the expenditure of public funds is downright scandalous. We vote enormous sums of money without paying a blind bit of attention to what happens

to it. The failure is not that we do not have packed benches to listen to the details on any particular subject but that we do not organise ourselves in Committee to do jobs which can only be done in Committee on the details of the Estimates. There is probably no other legislature in a developed country with parliamentary traditions that gives less attention than we do to the approval of public expenditure. It is high time that the House gave more attention to changes in its procedure designed to do that.
If this were the Bundestag and the Minister were coming here to get £4 million for overseas aid, the Bundestag would never dream of considering the matter in the Chamber but would refer it to two committees. The members of the overseas aid committee would each take bits of what the Minister wants, look at the bits in detail and go to the overseas development administration in Bonn and pore over them to see whether they could find a flaw in what the Minister wanted, to see whether they could fault him on policy or execution. The result is that in the Bundestag it occasionally happens that the Minister says "I want £X and he does not get £X. He may get a bit more or a bit less or he may get the money for a slightly different purpose, but he does not automatically get what he wants. In this Mother of Parliaments the Minister always gets what he wants. We know that he will get what he wants, and yet we go through the empty charade of discussing whether he is to get what he wants.
The solution is clear. When the Estimates are presented by the Government to the House as a request for funds, that request should be referred to the Expenditure Committee of the House, which in turn should refer it to the subject sub-committees to look at or ignore as they wish and to take upon themselves greater responsibility for it than any other hon. Member. It is a good managerial principle that a few people should have a greater responsibility than 630 people. No one would dream of operating a commercial concern on any other principle. The House of Commons, however, totally ignores that managerial principle.
There is a move afoot for the House again to set up a Select Committee on


Overseas Aid. The motion calling for that has been signed by about 200 hon. Members. I understand that it is likely that the Government will look sympathetically at that proposal, at least in principle. If we do set up another Select Committee on Overseas Aid I should like us to take the opportunity to make an experiment in having a subject committee. I use "subject committee" as a term of art to mean a committee which deals with, and is invited by the House to deal with, all matters pertaining to the subject allocated to it.
What normally happens with, for example, a Select Committee on Overseas Aid is that it spends days and days hearing evidence from witnesses and comes up with a report which is generally ignored and has no practical effect. What we should do is to have a permanent committee on a subject like overseas aid so that whenever the Estimates are brought before the House those relating to aid are referred to the committee to pore over them and, if it so wishes, to bring out a report approving, disapproving or commenting upon them. If legislation were coming before the House relevant to that committee's subject, it would be right for that legislation to be looked at by the committee.
That is common sense, although it may be revolutionary for the House of Commons, and it would never be accepted if it were proposed for the whole of policy, but I am suggesting that if the Government are sympathetic to the idea of a Select Committee on Overseas Aid we should experiment with that idea on that subject. The subject is not in the forefront of political controversy and there would be no effect on the other working of the House. The committee would be taking over the functions of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee in so far as they relate to future projections of overseas aid figures, the public expenditure White Paper and surveillance over the Estimates. The manner in which we do these things at the moment is a public scandal of the first order, and we must do something about it quickly before we are forced to reform by outside people who take an interest in our doings.
I turn to the Estimates which the Minister is presenting to us, and I am con-

cerned only with those which are accounted as part of the aid programme. I think I am right in saying that those amount to just under £4 million. I say "I think I am right" because the first difficulty is to find out whether one is right. The Estimates are presented in a manner which does not make it easy to compare them with the public expenditure White Paper. I have constantly argued that this is madness and that it should be possible to identify which estimates belong to which public expenditure programme, but that cannot be done. One has to wade through 130 pages to find all the aid items.
When I wanted to do that last June I had to ask the Minister for Overseas Development—I am sorry he is not able to be here today and I quite understand why—to list for me all the items within those Estimates that fell within the aid programme. As an offshoot of that it was discovered that one item amounting to £500,00 had been booked to the aid programme which should not have been booked to it. Whether that discovery was made because I raised the matter I do not know, but that is the sort of thing that is likely to occur if there is a committee which is taking an interest. In reply to my question whether he could not find an easier way of doing it in future, the Minister said:
I am considering how best to provide similar information in future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June 1972; Vol. 838, c. 393.]
That was on 14th June 1972, and I have not heard another word about it. What is happening? Why cannot there be a table in the Estimates which allows me to find out which estimates are booked to the aid programme and which are not? It should not be for me to wander through all the pages to find the items.
In the Estimates before us today there is one Vote which is entirely booked to the aid programme. There is another Vote in which only one item is booked to the aid programme. One has to know one's way about the Estimates—as by accident I do—to find the other one, nearly £4 million, which is also booked to the aid programme. One does not have to be an administrative genius to overcome this difficulty, and if the Minister does not find a way of getting that information into the Estimates by the next time the aid Estimates come before


the House I promise to table 50 Questions a day from then on until he finds a way of doing it. He knows that I can find enough Questions to suit his answers. There is no reason why this should not be done, and I resent having to ask twice for it to be done.
The House is given insufficient background information on the aid Estimates presented to it. For example, we have no background information on the Estimates presented today. The Minister for Overseas Development maintains that he wants to supply the House with as much information as possible about our aid programme. He then chooses to put out information in a manner which could not be better designed to ensure that hon. Members do not know about it. Each year the Overseas Development Administration produces a printed version of its annual report to the Development Assistance Committee. If that were produced as a Command Paper, we should all know about its existence, but since the Department chooses to produce it as a departmental paper, it involves a great deal of research to discover its whereabouts. The Library staff often do not know of its existence, nor does the Department. Will the Minister ensure that documents which form the background to the Estimates are circulated publicly so that they may come to the attention of hon. Members.
On this Vote discussion is limited and I shall not seek to deal with the entire aid programme. I would draw attention to the very large item on pensions which is set out on page 126 of the Estimates where it is stated that the figure exists because of
… unavoidable delays in completing Exchange of Notes with overseas Governments".
What are those unavoidable delays, and may we be given the background?
There has been a small increase in the amount of British grant-in-aid to the British Solomon Island Protectorate. I do not object to this in principle, but I feel that we need to be told something about the trend of Britain's grant-in-aid to the Protectorate in relation to its revenue. The trend up to last year was that the British grant-in-aid represented an ever-increasing proportion of the total

revenue of the territory. The function of the Development Assistance Committee should be to ensure that a territory becomes free from budgetary assistance as soon as possible. It often happens that such assistance rises markedly, but we should be told whether the British aid programme in the Protectorate is of such a character that it is hoped that the development of the territory will create less need for future British grants-in-aid. This should be the principle on which the ODA plans its development assistance.
There are several items in the Estimates relating to Ugandan Asians. We have increased our contribution to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees by £250,000. There is also an item of £41,000 to the Inter-Governmental Committee on European Migration. Lastly, we see a token vote for payments to certain Governments for assistance in placing United Kingdom passport holders from Uganda.
Since these three items hang together may we be told why they are classified as aid? I sympathise with the policy of reducing aid to Uganda in the light of the policies which are being pursued by Uganda, but surely this can be done without diminishing the total amount of normal aid. Indeed, I see no justification for treating money expended on placing British Ugandan Asians as aid, nor for treating any part of our contribution to the United Nations High Commisioner for Refugees as aid.
There are two items in respect of smaller payments which require explanation. I refer to items D19 and E6 in the Estimates. The first relates to payments incurred by certain overseas Governments, and only token provision is made. May we be told which Governments ate included in this item and how many refugees are involved? Has the item of £41,000 for the Inter-Governmental Committee on European Migration anything to do with the Ugandan Asians? It looks to me as though it has nothing at all to do with them. It appears to relate to the placement of British Ugandan Asians in Latin America, but the countries concerned are not identified. Which countries are concerned, how many refugees are involved and what kind of body is it that is being paid £41,000 of public funds?
The Government should explain their current policy on Uganda. In the middle of the crisis we were told that the Government proposed to review their total policy towards Uganda following the removal of the Asians so as not to prejudice their safety. We have heard nothing about that review, nor have we heard anything about suspension of Commonwealth preference or the use of other sanctions which could be exercised against Uganda. I hope the Government do not envisage a British representative sitting down at the table with Amin or with an Amin representative at this year's Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference. I hope the Government will say that they intend to take the initiative in respect of the Ugandan Government whose actions have given rise to the payments which we are now considering. I hope that they will propose to the other Commonwealth Governments that Uganda should be suspended—I repeat "suspended"—rather than expelled from membership of the Commonwealth as long as it continues to pursue its present policies and to continue under the kind of thuggish Government that is now in power.
I have raised a number of detailed matters which are not matters to be considered on the Floor of the House. These matters should be dealt with in a committee. There is no machinery for dealing with these details, and yet they are most important. It is high time that the procedures were improved for the scrutiny of expenditure proposals which are put to the House by the Government.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) and I served on the same Committee last year which considered the need to ensure the continuation of private investment overseas and forms of aid.
I support what the hon. Gentleman said about the setting up of a Select Committee on overseas aid. I also welcome fthe fact that it was a decision by the Labour Government, under the aegis of the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), who was then the Minister for Overseas Development, which topped up, or rather took over, the pensions of overseas civil servants. This decision has made an enor-

mous difference to many people who have served the Crown for many years in great loyalty overseas. But for that decision they would be wondering where the money on which they have to live would be coming from. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have urged successive Governments for quite a long time on this matter. It is making a great deal of difference to many people that they can now feel assured that their pensions will be paid.
The hon. Member for Islington, South-West takes a slightly different line from me over the importance of public aid versus private aid. Many people say that more ought to be given by way of public aid, especially for infrastructure. I think that more people will be employed if more private enterprise can be undertaken in partnership with local people.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could experiment. We have started an experiment under the new Overseas Investment and Export Guarantees Act. Although the method of insurance is undertaken by the ECGD, under the Department of Trade and Industry, the liaison between it and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office must be considerable. Possibly when my hon. Friend winds up the debate he will tell us how this is going on. I believe that the more private aid that can come, possibly the less need for public expenditure.
I should like to know how many pre-investment studies have been undertaken, how many applications have been made for insurance, and how many agreements have been signed. It is now on a 1 per cent. basis. I suppose that sooner or later we shall have variable premiums in countries such as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West. However, I believe that this matter needs very careful liaison between my hon. Friend's Office and the DTI. As the hon. Gentleman said, the object of aid is to get territories off aid.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) that the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) has done a great service by raising the


question of parliamentary control over our overseas aid programme.
The hon. Gentleman cited the example of how the German Parliament controls its overseas aid programme. I have in mind the way that the American Congress controls its programme; the annual aid debate is one of the great set pieces of the congressional year. We may not perhaps look forward to that happening in this House, but I hope that we may at some time move a great deal further in the direction of the American practice. It is true that in recent years Congress has used the occasion of the annual aid debate to make substantial cuts in the programme put forward by the American Administration. However, I do not think that would necessarily happen in this House if we were to have more debates on that subject.
I can think of two items on which I should be pressing the Government to increase expenditure. One is the relief of famine in Nepal. The situation there is becoming critical. Some of the inhabitants of Nepal are being reduced to eating grass. This famine is striking sharply in those areas where recruiting for the Gurkha regiments has been most strong. I am sure that if we could have a proper debate on this subject there would be pressure on the Government from both sides of the House to increase our assistance to Nepal. Perhaps that will happen soon.
The second item concerns aid to Vietnam in view of the cease-fire that is coming into effect there. In the past I have made critical remarks about the size of our aid programme to Vietnam. Now that peace is finally coming to that country we have an opportunity to play a substantial rôle in reconstruction there. I am glad to see reports in the Press that we are thinking of increasing our assistance from about £300,000 a year now to £2 million to £5 million a year. If we could have a debate on this subject I am sure that there would be pressure from both sides of the House for increased generosity to try to alleviate the suffering in Vietnam.
It would be churlish not to thank the Government for some of the increases shown in the Supplementary Estimates. I have in mind particularly E.9, the increase in the North Atlantic Assembly

Vote. I grant that it is an increase of only £1,560, but I am glad that the Government have increased the sum that we allot to the North Atlantic Assembly budget.
When the value of the pound fell as a result of our policy of floating it, so our contribution to the North Atlantic Assembly and, indeed, to other parliamentary assemblies in Europe was cut in value. As these assemblies work on tight budgets, this was a substantial burden to them.
I can understand the Government's reluctance immediately to say "We will step in and make up the difference." No doubt they had one eye on Mr. Mintoff in Malta. If it was felt right to step up the budget of the North Atlantic Assembly, no doubt Mr. Mintoff would have noted that.
In Opposition, many of my hon. Friends repeatedly pressed the point that we ought to be less niggardly in our approach to the budgets of the Council of Europe and the North Atlantic Assembly. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State raised his voice on this point, as I recall. Therefore, I am glad that there are some increases in the Estimates to take care of the decrease in the value of the pound following the floating of the rate.
I turn now to the grant to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the extra £250,000 to assist in the work of resettling stateless Asians from Uganda. The United Nations Specialised Agencies are of variable quality. I do not think that many observers would put the organisation that assists the High Commissioner for Refugees at the top or the bottom of the list, but in recent months it has not been capable of dealing with a major emergency. Can we expect the United Nations High Commissioner to offer much assistance if other African countries start to expel stateless Asians or Asians with British passports? I do not think that we could expect much assistance from the High Commissioner if he were to give him not just an extra £250,000, but an extra £2,500,000 or even an extra £25 million.
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made a statement saying that there will be no more mass emigration


to this country even if other States begin to expel their minorities. Despite the fact that my right hon. Friend has made that statement, it seems that we still have some responsibility for Asian passport holders. As I see it, we are not required to admit them to this country, to Beckenham, Mitcham or Stroud. However, we have to find some haven for them. Fortuitously, the Supplementary Estimates make provision for extra expenses incurred in the Seychelles and Solomon Islands. I hove that in both the Seychelles and the Solomon Islands we shall press ahead with plans to build reception camps in case British passport holders should be expelled in the future from Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi or even Zambia. If they are thrown out of the communities in which they reside we shall have to find somewhere for them to go, and somewhere in territories that we control. The Solomon Islands, in particular, seems to be a place where we could build a camp to provide a temporary haven until such time as their turn came up in the quota to come to this country or until India decided to admit——

Mr. Dan Jones: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) is raising an important point but I am not sure whether he has examined it as fully as he might. The Asians in question, particularly those from Kenya, a country of which I have personal experience, are well versed in administration and commercial work. Before the hon. Gentleman's idea is advanced too strongly before the Government, steps should be taken to find out the possibilities in the Solomon and Seychelle Islands for occupations of that kind. Otherwise, with the best intentions in the world, I am sure that the idea would not get off the ground.

Mr. Goodhart: I am not suggesting that one should use British aid money to resettle Asian refugees in the Solomon or the Seychelle Islands. All I am suggesting is that we should use some of the substantial sum of £126,000 that we are finding for the administration of the Solomon Islands in the setting up of transit camps.
I am not suggesting that the Asians should live permanently in the Solomon

or the Seychelle Islands. First, there is not the physical space, and, secondly, there would not be anything there for them to do. I am suggesting, however, that there is space available to provide transit camps, on Butlin camp style, where they could reside for months or years until the United Nations High Commissioner, perhaps along with us, could find some permanent place for them to go.
Finally, is any provision made in the Supplementary Estimates for extra payments to the British aid personnel who have had to cut short their careers in Uganda because of General Amin's action? I am sure that the whole House would be united in thinking that we should be no less generous to personnel who have had to cut short their careers than we have been in providing assistance to other British passport holders who have been forced to leave that unhappy country.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Dan Jones: The matters raised by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) are of great interest. However, I would rather the Government consider them in perhaps a different way. First, the hon. Gentleman agreed with me that it is not possible to exploit these people in a commercial or administrative way in the Solomon Islands. If we add to that the fact that there is considerable unease in Kenya, which I know from personal experience, we might be faced with a situation which has been properly outlined by the hon. Gentleman.
I suggest—I offer my suggestion tentatively and certainly in no dogmatic manner—that it would profit the Government if they looked first to India, the Asians' home country, of which I have some experience. People with administrative experience would be of substantial value to India. Instead of paying out our money in a fashion that very often results in its uneconomic use, I suggest that the Government should examine with India the extent to which the experience of these people can be used to advantage in a different direction and in a different way than has been the case previously. It seems that that is one way of dealing with the problem that might easily descend upon us in the near future.

4.27 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): I first express my thanks and, I am sure, the thanks of the House, to the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) for raising this important subject. I am aware that we sometimes do not seem to have an opportunity to discuss aid in the way in which some of us would like. However, the comparatively few right hon. and hon. Members present seems to prove that we have not a great market for aid debates.
I know how difficult it is to look through these Estimates, but we are talking not about £4 million but about just under £3 million. There is £2 million for the pensioners and the rest of the items total approximately £400,000.

Mr. Cunningham: I reached my figure of £4 million by taking the items marked as falling within the overseas aid programme total on page 127. The hon. Gentleman will see that the figure given there is £3½ million. I then added to that the much smaller figures mentioned earlier in the book. I realise that the figure involves a two-way flow.

Mr. Kershaw: Perhaps the matter is not of great importance. It does not detract from—in fact, it reinforces—the hon. Gentleman's point about how difficult it is to thread one's way through the Votes. What we are discussing is Vote 2 of Class 11 on page 15, amounting to £250,000, Vote 5 of Class II on page 18, amounting to £165,000 and the pensions items amounting to £2,290,000, making a total of £2,705,000.
The hon. Gentleman will recall that Professor Parkinson said that the British accounts and estimates were made in this way to conceal the fact that Charles II was spending the Navy Estimates on his mistresses—and even for that purpose it was not specially effective. But, further to the assurance which the hon. Gentleman was given last June, we are still studying how we can effectively present the Votes for aid in one Vote. We should like to do that because it would be much easier to follow. However, the hon. Gentleman will understand that a number of Departments would have to be consuited

and other considerations taken into account.

Mr. Cunningham: There are two points involved. I have stressed on another occasion the desirability of presenting all the aid Votes as one Vote. But that was not the point I am making today. What I am asking for now relates to another point which I have hammered before, namely, that whatever votes they appear in I want an extract of all those booked to the overseas aid programme so that I do not have to work through a publication of 130 pages. It does not take six months to work out a way of doing that.

Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Gentleman's point has again been noted and we shall get in touch with him about it.
The hon. Member mentioned the Account of the British Air Programme we give to the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD, which does not have a Command Paper number. I see no reason why we should not give it a Command Paper number so that hon. Members have it drawn to their attention when it is published each year.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not deal with the question whether we should deal with this matter by a system of Committees or on the Floor of the House. That is a general question which the House will wish to consider. But I share the hon. Gentleman's feeling that we do not discuss aid questions often enough. We have a very good story to tell and it is desirable that we should have more oportunities to tell it. Nevertheless, there are some opportunities. It is open to the Opposition to give a Supply Day for discussing the question of aid. That has never been done by either party.

Mrs. Judith Hart: The last major debate which we had on a subject related to developing countries—the subject of UNCTAD III—took place last April on an Opposition Supply Day.

Mr. Kershaw: I stand corrected.

Mr. William Hamilton: Wrong as usual.

Mr. Kershaw: But it was a good try. I could not be sure that the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) would be here. I accept what she said.


Clearly the UNCTAD III conference was an extremely important conference and the House would have wished to debate it. However, the ordinary machinery for discussing the question of overseas aid has not been used in that form except on that occasion.
The White Paper on Public Expenditure, Cmnd. 5178, will, I suppose, be debated soon by the House. Furthermore, as hon. Members have pointed out, we are to have a Select Committee on the question of overseas development. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has agreed that such a Committee should be set up. How it will work and what the system will be is a matter for the House and, I suppose, for the Select Committee. No doubt we shall be able to discuss it.
These matters of overseas aid can also be raised in the form of parliamentary Questions, but I am the first to admit that the House has not been very fortunate in this respect recently. In November, only one Question, which was taken with another, was reached. Questions on this subject were not reached at all the day before yesterday. When we come in at No. 30 on a day when the Prime Minister is not answering Questions at 3.15 p.m. and our questions are not reached, both sides of the House should perhaps look at their respective performances. I dare say we are all to blame.
The Supplementary Estimates do not provide extra money to be devoted to aid during the year. They provide money which could not be precisely quantified in the main Estimates because perhaps the last disbursement was not known or because an unforeseen contingency had occurred.
Turning to the various items in the Vote, the first one which the hon. Member for Islington, South-West mentioned was pensions. The reason why it appears and keeps on appearing in these Votes is the great delays which we have experienced in trying to finalise the arrangements with the various countries. They have their own procedures and it has proved very difficult for them to come to a conclusion and to pass the necessary legislation. Nigeria is a case in point. That is one reason why the expenditure on pensions appears, sporadically in these Votes. However, the pensions are now

being paid in the proper way by the British Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) said, this is a very satisfactory state of affairs.
The small amount of £133 appearing in Vote 5, Class II is a technical accounting matter about which the House will not, I think, wish to be delayed.
It is the case that the grant in aid for the British Solomon Islands Protectorate has been rising recently. That is partly because of inflation, partly because of currency revaluation as the currency is now linked to the Australian dollar, and partly because of setbacks for the islands due to climate and prices. During last year the islands suffered from two bad hurricanes which did a great deal of damage and harmed the revenue. Copra prices have been low for some time—they have hardly given a return to the grower—although I am happy to say that they are rising slightly now. That aspect of the matter looks more hopeful. In the last year, because of world conditions, timber output, which had been rising very rapidly, did not increase. Therefore, that area was also depressed.
But there are bright aspects in the British Solomon Islands. The palm oil experiment, which has been going for eight years, is coming on well and oil is beginning to come into production. The experiments with fishing are going well and the catches are increasing sharply. I had the pleasure of visiting the islands and I can vouch for the fact that there is an air of activity and hope in the place. I have no doubt that before very long they will be able to move out of the grant in aid position and will have a sound economic as well as political future.
I was asked what the £10 payment was to other countries for United Kingdom passport holders. These are payments made to other countries for looking after the passport holders for the time being until they wish to come here. In fact, the only country concerned is India where the amount involved is £3,000.
The Inter-Governmental Committee on European Migration undertook to take, and has taken, a number of United Kingdom passport holders to Latin America and, on a reimbursement basis, we have paid them £41,000. That is our share of their expenditure.
The hon. Member raised the general problem of whether payments of this type should be a charge on aid at all. This is a substantial question. One can argue that the payments have been made for the benefit of people from the less developed countries. One can also say that no developing country has lost aid by what we have done in this regard. The House will notice that £20 million—£10 million last year and another £10 million this year—has been added to the aid programme for the benefit of Bangladesh. Therefore, the developing countries do not suffer. We take into consideration the benefit which these payments give to their citizens in the circumstances which surround them. No doubt this is an interesting subject which the Select Committee will discuss.

Mrs. Hart: I should not have raised the subject had the hon. Gentleman not touched on it. Given that £20 million has been added to the aid programme on account of help to Bangladesh, can the hon. Gentleman fit that in with what I can only call the minus signs for future years which one finds in the White Paper on public expenditure, which seem to indicate that the total level of the aid programme will have to be less than it otherwise would have been in the years ahead because of extra expenditure of this kind?

Mr. Kershaw: The right hon. Lady is referring to the predicted expenditure. The payment of £20 million and certain other switchings have been authorised from later years to this year, and these have made the rise in the percentage expenditure seem lower. If we spend more now, we change the relationship between this year and the next. On average, the rise in our expenditure will be just under 8 per cent., although the actual figures given in the votes in this volume show a rise of only 4·2 per cent. This is because of the accelerated payments and switchings that have taken place in this year, so that to some extent it falsifies the average expressed as a percentage.
The hon. Member for Islington, South-West referred also to our general policy on Uganda and the Commonwealth Conference to be held in the summer and asked whether I could say something

about that. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would not be appropriate for me to embark on a general debate on this matter. All I say is that we regret that it has become progressively more difficult to operate our aid programme in Uganda.

Mr. Cunningham: I accept that this is not the occasion for the hon. Gentleman to embark upon a long policy speech on Uganda, but surely he is prepared to tell us where things stand on the review of policy towards Uganda that was promised by the Foreign Secretary about two months ago as something that would proceed apace and come to fruition some time after the Asians had all been expelled and therefore no one could suffer. We ought to be given some indication of where things stand.

Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we announced that we were not able to extend to Uganda the £10 million loan that we intended to provide. Expatriates—experts, teachers, doctors, and so on—who decide to come back and have to break their contracts are being looked after financially. That is a payment which, under the circumstances, has to be made from the aid programme. Those who are there are being paid or are having their salaries topped up, and such development work as was undertaken has not been cut off. It is being continued and will, we hope, be brought to completion.

Mr. Cunningham: Is that the great review of policy?

Mr. Kershaw: I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is remarkable to withdraw a £10 million undertaking. It has never been done before, and I hope very much that the situation will not arise in which it has to be done again. I think that what I have said deals with the aid programme towards Uganda, and that is what my right lion. Friend said would be done. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not notice it at the time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree asked about the private sector and what kind of liaison there was with the public sector and whether this had been working properly. The organisational side is growing, as is the


liaison between the two sectors. I understand that there have been about 20 applications for co-operation between the private and public sectors. Three have been agreed, and I understand that the ECGD has received a number of applications in this matter, though nothing has yet been signed.

Mr. Tilney: Has there been any advertising of this service? It is important that private enterprise should be aware of the possibilities of insurance in this way.

Mr. Kershaw: I shall look into that and write to my hon. Friend about it. It seems fairly well known.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) referred to Nepal. We realise the great difficulties in Nepal, and from answers to Questions on Monday my hon. Friend will have noted that we are making donations. I am happy to say that recently we have been able to increase quite sharply our donations to Nepal, and a further sum of nearly £400,000 will be sent.

Mr. Goodhart: Has authorisation been received for the use of Royal Air Force aircraft to distribute food? As I understand it, there is a major distribution problem.

Mr. Kershaw: I shall look into that and let my hon. Friend know.
On the question of Vietnam, from answers which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave on Monday to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) my hon. Friend will have seen that we are in touch with the International Red Cross to find out which it most wants. We have sent medical supplies, and we are helping the Save the Children Fund with medical supplies and facilities generally in Indo-China. We are also in contact with the United Nations Oganisation about this, and we stand ready to do more when we know exactly what is wanted.
I noted and was glad to hear what my hon. Friend said about the North Atlantic Assembly. It does not come within the matter of aid for which I have responsibility, but I hope my hon. Friend will agree that it is a pleasant and useful assembly. We are glad to do what we can for it.
On the question of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, we shall in the very near future have an opportunity to discuss with Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan how his organisation is coping with these constant crises. He is coming to London, and I have noted what my hon. Friend said. My hon. Friend will no doubt bear in mind that recently, largely due to pressure from Her Majesty's Government, disaster machinery has been set up within the United Nations. It has started well and should be of great help in this sort of event in the future.
My hon. Friend talked about camps for those who might be displaced later in the Seychelles and Solomon Islands. I approach that matter with a certain amount of misgiving. I should not wish to give the impression that we expect our nationals to be expelled. We have good and friendly relations and workable schemes with the countries concerned, and we have no doubt that they, like us, wish to adhere to what we have undertaken.
Furthermore, my hon. Friend will bear in mind that although the Seychelles and the BSIP are not yet independent, they have a large measure of internal self-government, and that includes control of immigration. I doubt whether they would be anxious to receive large numbers of people coming to them for unknown periods. The Solomon Islands did indeed offer to give space for one United Kingdom passport holder. They needed a lawyer, and I have no doubt that whichever lawyer goes there he will find himself in an extremely happy position. It is a pleasnt place, and I am told that the salary of the Solicitor-General is adequate to live on.
We are also making extra payments to the people who have lost their contracts and for the time being have lost their possessions in Uganda and have had to come home. We are helping them with a special operation. The money is not mentioned in these Estimates because there was not time to put it in. If necessary it will be in the Spring Estimates.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones), who has had to leave us, asked that we examine with India what could be done about United Kingdom passport holders and others of Indian origin. I assure the hon. Gentleman and


the House that we are in the closest touch with the Indian Government about this. We have had great help from them, and our relations on this matter are very intimate and cordial.
That is all I have to say about this very complicated matter of aid. I hope that the new Committee will be able to make a fundamental examination of the principles and practice. I look forward to its being of the greatest help to us in the House in our study of these matters.

Orders of the Day — DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (STAFF)

4.50 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: Before I say what I have to say about the specific Supplementary Estimates on which I wish to comment, I should like to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham), who initiated the first debate, how much I agree with what he said about the general principle of debates on the Estimates. I do not know what the public will think when they see or hear that half a dozen of us are deciding to give the Government an extra £590 million to play around with over and above what they have already asked the House for—£184 million extra on defence and £406 million on various civil Departments.
For example, about £20 million extra is being sought for the Royal Marines. I wonder how many mental hospitals we could build for that money. That is a matter that could well be raised in the debate next Monday on public expenditure. I leave the general point at that, because we are today discussing not priorities but precisely what is in the Supplementary Estimates. We are limited to that, and I see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, approve wholly of that principle.
But one of the fundamental principles of our constitution is that before we give the cash we have a bit of a bellyache about it, the redress of grievance before the granting of supply. If that were the test, it would seem that the House is completely satisfied, that it has very few grievances, that there are fewer than a dozen hon. Members who have grievances at all. I do not think that

that reflects the view of people outside. They have enough grievances, and I shall come to those directly related to the Supplementary Estimates to which I want to call attention—Class VII, Vote 1, Subhead A, and Class VII, Vote 2, Subhead A, "National Health Service Hospitals", and so on. There is an additional sum of £41 million in the latter and an additional £10,700,000 on the social security side.
I was for many years on the Estimates Committee before it was changed to the Public Expenditure Committee. Many years ago we had in the Estimates detail which has since been removed. The volume of information on the Estimates has been reduced by at least half, on the basis that the House was not interested in that kind of detail, and that anyway the House as a whole was not equipped to investigate in detail the information there provided. I admit at once that I was a member of the Estimates Committee when we agreed that the sheer volume of the information provided should be drastically reduced. I am not sure that we took the right decision. I think that one of the reasons why the public are increasingly cynical about the House and government generally is that neither we nor they receive adequate information, and we do not have the resources to dig it out.
All Governments—I make no party political point—have a vested interest in keeping back-bench Members like myself and the general public in the dark as much as they can. It is only by stern endeavour and stern discipline on our part that we obtain such information as we can from Governments.
Here I should like to give some specific examples. I hope that I am not offending against the etiquette of the House when I say that only yesterday I was approached by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), who asked me what I would talk about. It is very proper and right that he should know, and I said that I would talk about the expenditure under Subhead A, Class VII, Vote 1, on salaries of Ministers, the Supplementary Benefits Commission and staff. He said "That is my responsibility." But I added "I am also going to talk about the National Health Service hospitals' provision at the


bottom of page 71 in the Supplementary Estimates, dealing with regional hospital boards and boards of governors and something called Increased rates of pay and National Insurance.'" Therefore, both Ministers are responsible, but I guess that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash, who is present now, will reply on behalf of both. I make no complaint about that, but I hope that he is well briefed and will not say that he will write to me. I do not like correspondence courses. Let us have the direct answers to the questions.
I have first a fairly simple question. At the foot of page 68 there is an item on Ministers' salaries. The present provision is £31,500 and the revised provision is £33,500. So far as I know there has been no increase in Ministers' salaries since the presentation of these Supplementary Estimates on 18th December last. What is that £2,000 about? Where has it gone? Who has it gone to?
Secondly, I have a similar question on the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The original salaries figure was £11,250 and the revised provision is £14,700. It is not a big sum—a matter of £3,450—but I should like to know where it has gone. It is a trifle, peanuts, compared with the overall Government expenditure, but it is not peanuts to the taxpayer footing the bill. It is not peanuts to a pensioner. The sum of £3,000 is a fortune to old people, and they are entitled to know what that is provided for.
But the bigger item under the heading of "Salaries, &c." is the third. It concerns staff salaries, where the present provision is £115,757,250, and the revised provision is £126,451,800. That is a difference of roughly £10 million. The explanation provided is that the increases are:
Mainly pay awards, increased provision for additional staff, overtime and higher rates of National Insurance contributions.
It goes on:
The provision made at this stage represents approximately 90 per cent. of the increase likely to be required.
No detail is given. On page 69 there is a reference to general administrative expenses, payments for agency services, and the rest, but nothing is spelled out. We do not have even the sort of detail

which we find in the Defence Supplementary Estimates. On page 8, for example, the Defence Supplementary Estimates give all the detail of pay of the Gurkha troops, the pay of the Ulster Defence Regiment and cadet forces, the pay and allowances of army officers, warrant officers, NCO's, men, women and so on, but the Estimate from the Department of Health and Social Security gives no breakdown of its figure.
Nor is there any indication of how many additional staff have been provided. The Minister will recall that a few weeks ago local officials in social security offices had a go-slow or a strike. They said that they were grossly overworked because of the comprehensive means-tested welfare State which we now have, because of the increased numbers who were applying for supplementary benefit, and so on. These people, for the first time that I can recall, were threatening strike action and marching in the streets in protest.
Civil servants are not recognised for their militancy. On the contrary, they have been highly responsible people, and they do not willingly take to the streets. But I remember seeing on the televsion screen the other day the picture of a fellow in a bowler hat, with his umbrella, carrying a placard. Ten years ago, one would never have dreamed that that could happen. Only a Conservative Government could bring about that kind of bowler-hatted revolution. This is what they have been driven to as a result of the Government's policies.
Let no one misunderstand the situation. When one talks about civil servants, the picture immediately conjured up in the general public's mind is much like what we saw on the television screen—a chap in a bowler hat, with a rolled umbrella, wearing black pin-stripe trousers, and earning a high salary. In fact, however, hundreds of thousands of these people are taking home less than £20 a week——

Mr. James Hamilton: A good many of them less than that.

Mr. William Hamilton: —and some of them with less than £15 a week take-home pay. These people have been driven to frenzied fury by the outrageous treatment meted out to them over the past several months by the present Government. Never in my wildest dreams should


I have expected them to show the kind of militancy that they have shown recently. They are not led by Hugh Scanlon, by Jack Jones or by any of the so-called Left-wing ogres whom the Government try to present to the public as responsible for the mess they are now in.
The Minister knows who is responsible. The Government have blatantly ratted on their undertakings to their own servants. The Priestley recommendations of 1956 on Civil Service pay procedure were implemented, and the principle was that the pay of civil servants should be based on wages paid to workers in comparable employment outside. That was the principle of so-called fair comparison. It had many defects. Civil servants were always behind in the rat race, they were a sure loser, especially in a period of rapid inflation such as we have had in the last two years from a Government who promised to resolve the problem without recourse to a statutory prices and incomes policy. The Government would not do that, they said. Prices could be cut at a stroke, unemployment could be cut at a stroke, and we should all be sitting in the garden lovely so long as the Tories were elected to office.
The Priestley recommendation that awards to the Civil Service——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The Civil Service as such is not in the Vote under discussion, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will quickly return to the Vote under discussion.

Mr. Hamilton: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, civil servants do come in the Vote under discussion. I take it that the staff in the Department of Health and Social Security are civil servants.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order I have been prepared to allow a certain latitude, but I think that I have allowed rather too much.

Mr. Hamilton: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the staff of the Department of Health and Social Security, the very people who are covered by the Priestley recommendations, are civil servants, and under this subhead the main provision is the additional £10 million for staff. Staff are civil servants. I am

talking about civil servants, and Priestley referred precisely to civil servants. I think that I am, therefore, entitled to say what I am saying about the Priestley recommendations and how they have been breached by the Government.

Mr. John Grant: The Supplementary Estimate would be considerbly affected, would it not, if the Government honoured their commitment to Priestley, so I suggest that my hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Hamilton: I am coming to that point. The Supplementary Estimates were published before the Government announced their prices and incomes policy, so the £10 million might well be altered subsequently as a result of phase 2 and the later phase 3 of that policy. Therefore, I can hardly think of anything more relevant than a discussion of the position of the civil servants in the local offices of the Department of Health and Social Security in the context of the Supplementary Estimate.
Priestley recommended that awards should be retrospective. Is there any provision in the Supplementary Estimate, or will there be future provision, for retrospective payments to these people, who have been denied their rights up to now, as from 1st January?
In 1962 the then Government, while preaching the desirability of arbitration to industrial unions, breached the Civil Service arbitration procedure which had existed since, I think, 1926, but subsequently accepted arbitration. The Labour Government of the 1960s limited the retrospective element of awards, and in 1968 that same Government accepted that agreed increases were due to civil servants but would be paid only in stages. It was agreed that a review of wages in the clerical and executive grades should be implemented from 1st January of this year, and the previous increase which had been awarded on 1st January last year was only 7 per cent.
The Civil Service unions have pointed out to me, and, no doubt, to other hon. Members—we have all had representations on this matter—that in that period the wage index had risen by 22½ per cent., three times the rate of the increase for these lower-paid civil servants, and the price index had risen by 16 per cent. or


18 per cent. Therefore, in terms of their standard of living and comparability with other workers, the civil servants had lost all round. Their standard of living had been reduced, and they had been reduced in terms of comparison with other workers.
It is painfully obvious to them that the Government are using the lower-paid workers in their employment as political whipping boys. These are the people who are made the example of the Government's determination to inflict their policy on the country as a whole.
It is not clear from the Supplementary Estimate whether the persons covered are workers in the social security offices at local level, or what they are. It just says "staff". I do not know what it covers. Perhaps the Minister will tell us. What part is due to salary increases and what part is due to the increased numbers that have had to be provided because of the protest by the workers on grounds of overwork? Whether they protest because of bad wages or because of overwork, they have a dual grievance in the sense that they have fallen behind other workers in their standard of living.
As the Minister knows, I took up these matters following reports from local officers of his Department in Fife. I took up the matter first with the Chancellor, and the letter was transferred to the Civil Service Department. I received a reply on 23rd January which took refuge in the fact that the Government had made it clear to the National Staff Side in 1971 that their endorsement of the Priestley principles and the existing agreements was:
subject to any requirements of an overriding national policy of general application.
It went on to say that the 1973 pay reviews:
will have to conform to the Government's counter-inflationary measures.
It concluded with the usual nonsense about non-discrimination against Government employees. But this is a case of blatant discrimination against these people, and the figures refer to the injustices perpetrated before the present prices and incomes policy was formulated, when the Government were still saying they would have nothing to do

with a statutory prices and incomes policy. The Prime Minister called the policy fair, and some of the newspapers said it was fair, too. Nobody in their right senses, nobody capable of exercising objectivity, could possibly say that the lower-paid civil servants and the ancillary staffs in the hospitals had been treated other than grossly unfairly.
I quote now correspondence I have had on this matter from someone in Bath, and I am glad to see the hon. Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown) present. I gave him notice that I intended to refer to the matter, and I thought that it was only fair to warn him about what I was going to say. I have had a letter from constituents of his complaining about the meetings that the Civil Service Union had in Bath, and I have newspaper cuttings, including one from the Western Daily Press. They refer to the hon. Member being shown one of these civil servants' pay slips showing that the man was taking home £14·50 a week. According to the newspaper the hon. Member said "If that is the case, get your cards. You will be better off on supplementary benefit." The hon. Member subsequently denied that he said that. I do not know whether it is true or not. The Western Daily Press subsequently quoted him as saying
I never made such a statement suggesting he should give up work. That is pure fabrication.
To that the Civil Service Union secretary, Mr. Christensen, replied:
I didn't make anything up.
He went on:
Those were his exact words, and although he may deny it there were five other members of my union who were there at the time.

Sir Edward Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for giving way, but I should first like your clearance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The matter which has now been discussed has gone outside the terms of reference of the debate. We are now talking about defence employees, none of whom is involved in hospitals. The statement I shall make, therefore, will be in relation to the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Hamilton: I accept completely what the hon. Member says, but the principle is the same.

Sir E. Brown: May I finish the explanation? It is true that I received a deputation from the Civil Service Union consisting of Mr. Christensen and four of his colleagues, not five. The pay slips were submitted to me, and one was as low as £14·50. The man who received that amount of pay made the point that he had an incapacitated wife at home. It was suggested to me that where a man had a totally invalided wife there were cases on social security which were receiving more money. I said that if this was the only income in the family, clearly the man would be better off on social security. I said no more and no less than that. The newspapers said that I had applied that comment to all the members of the Civil Service Union.
The Minister will be aware that I immediately wrote to his Department about the three cases in question, and I received an answer from him outlining the Government's policy as wanting to do something for this sector of employees. I have taken up the matter concerning my own constituents because I feel profound sympathy for them in the situation in which they find themselves, and I have made strong representations about both the executive grades and the lower-paid grades.

Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful for that speech. The hon. Member may talk about sympathy as much as he likes but he voted for the Government's pay freeze. In effect, he said that those men who are taking home £15 a week and less to keep a family have to make do with an extra £1 plus 4 per cent. He voted for that, and it is no good his getting up and squealing and saying that he has written to the Minister, offering his sympathy and telling these men to hang on with an extra £1 when the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues are being paid an extra £350 a year each.
But I am now straying away from the Supplementary Estimate. There are civil servants under this Supplementary Estimate who are taking home less than £15 a week. It is indefensible for the Government to say that the policy is fair. It is a policy of deception and cruelty, and the Prime Minister has reached the stage where no one believes him. He deceived the country in the General Electiton campaign when he pretended

that we would be one nation and that he would look after the poor. We are now talking about the poor.
I have one point to make about the ancillary staff who are mentioned on page 71. There it says:
Increased rates of pay and National Insurance.
I should like to know exactly what increases in pay there have been to nurses, for instance. I get very worked up about the nursing profession whenever I talk about it in the House, for very personal reasons. There is not a profession which deserves more of this nation and there is not a profession which gets less from it. Because the Government know that the nurses will not strike, because they know that the nurses are defenceless, they take it out on them year after year. Fine words do not make any noise in the frying pan. No doubt we shall hear many of diem this afternoon from the Minister when he talks about the devotion and loyalty of these people. But that does not put cash in their pay packet, and that is what counts.
What applies to the nurses applies to the ancillary staff, the people who clean floors and wash pans and so on. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) talks about coloured immigrants, but it was he who brought them in when he was Minister of Health, and if it were not for those people our health services would break down. In any hospital in the country and particularly in London, one sees how the hospitals depend not on the surgeons—of course they depend upon them, too, but the surgeons are all right financially—but on the coloured people in the kitchens who do the dirty grubby work, and on the nurses, too. These people are to be frozen—literally frozen—under the present magnificent munificent Government and their great policy of phase I and phase 2 and the tougher phase 3 which we are promised some time later this year.
That is what we are talking about, and these Supplementary Estimates are but a peg on which to hang the arguments. I wish that more hon. Members were present to kick up a bigger row than is possible with the limited numbers at our disposal. I want the Minister to spell out for me—he is doing his homework now—exactly what the nurses are to get in


the next six months, what a staff nurse is to get, what a third-year student is to get, and what is to be deducted from that for subsistence when she is living in. I want the figures.
I want to be told how the standard of living of nurses is going up as a result of Tory beneficence, and I want to be told how these coloured lasses and lads are to be paid against the rent increases under the Government's rent legislation. The staff nurse is the key figure, and I should like to be told what a staff nurse in an ordinary hospital is to get in cash terms in the next six months and how much is to be deducted from that if she lives in. It is a simple question and the officials should have the answer and the Minister had better get it. I want it now, not in writing later.
I have made the case as kindly as I can and moderately—I am naturally a moderate man. I have put the story as simply, as plainly, and as bluntly as I could; I hope to have a similar response from the Minister.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The whole House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for raising his voice on a subject in which many of us are interested. In every debate about the hospital services and nursing that I have known since I entered the House in 1959 my hon. Friend has been in the forefront of the battle. I remember our joint efforts on an all-night sitting in 1961 during one of the freezes when the nurses were the first to be caught.
I want to refer to Class VII, Vote 1, subhead A and follow what my hon. Friend said when he spoke about bowler-hatted demonstrations which only the present Government seem able to manufacture.
My local department of health and social security has one of the hardest tasks of all because of the nature of the social problems in my constituency—housing, employment changes and redevelopment and, incidentally I have twice as many immigrants as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Some of these DHSS employees came to lobby me in large numbers last week. I do not want to

repeat the arguments which my hon. Friend has just stated, with which I agree. I am certain that when I send them HANSARD, they will be more than grateful for his work on their behalf this afternoon. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
On the subject of Vote 2, subhead A; I start more or less where my hon. Friend finished. I have worked out that we in this Chamber are each worth about £4 million on the basis of the £41 million involved here, for there are only about 10 hon. Members present. What changes are being made as a result of extra pay allocations for regional hospitals boards? I challenge the Minister to discuss the subject of danger money for nurses, for instance. It is ridiculous that a nurse still gets danger money for nursing a venereal disease patient, although she is in no danger unless she is a participating member of the permissive society, and then the danger does not come from nursing; but if she nurses renal dialysis on a day-in day-out basis, she is exposed to the possibility of serum heptatitis and may die and yet gets no danger money.
The Minister will recall the tragedy in Scotland. The numbers have never been given to the public, and I do not blame the Scottish Ministry for that, but a number of doctors and nurses died as a result of doing their duty in a renal dialysis unit. If the Minister is to consider this section of the Estimates, he should consider some of these changes within the basis pay structure for nurses, which, quite apart from the Briggs Report and the Salmon Report, need immediate attention.
It is a disgrace to the country that we pay nurses and ancillary staff in hospital service so little at a time when as a nation we are spending twice as much on alcohol, cigarettes and gambling as on the whole of the National Health Service. We are still paying poor money to these essential people. Anyone going along Victoria Street from this House can see agency advertisements for temporary shorthand typists offering a five-day week at five hours a day with a pay twice that of a State registered nurse who does night duty, day duty, on-call duty and so on. There is something wrong with our society when we cannot put our values right in that regard.
I ask the Minister not to say that these are matters for the Whitley Councils. If it is good enough for the doctors to have direct representation, why is it not good enough for the nurses? Why not a comparable review body for nurses? I pay credit to the Secretary of State for being prepared to act on his own initiative in the scandals in the long-stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped and geriatric patients. On his initiative, more money was provided. We are here considering the pay of people who give devoted service to the community, and this, too, is an area in which he should take the initiative.
The Estimates include the figure of more than £2 million spent by regional boards and management committees on advertising for nurses. Considerably more is being spent on agency nurses because we do not pay enough to our own nurses in the hospital services. The agency nurses are paid considerably more and have better conditions than nurses who choose to remain in the National Health Service. Surely it is possible to devise a system in which it is not necessary for millions of pounds a year to be spent by hospital after hospital seeking nurses. The money spent on such advertising would be better devoted to improving the pay and conditions of nurses.
How miserably mean is the extra overtime pay now agreed for complete Sunday working! It is worked out at fractions of a pound. A nurse might have done 50 or 60 hours in a week and yet, because of some special responsibility, be called in to work on a Sunday. After allowing for fares and so on, if she is lucky she may have 50p for the extra hours and the loss of her weekend. These matters affect not just basic pay but the additions which ought to go with the pay. I hope that the Under-Secretary will address his mind to them.
Another sector which has been neglected year after year is covered by those employed in the professions associated with medicine. I do not intend to deal with all of them, but I wish to draw attention to the position of radiographers and the nonsense which occurs because we do not pay them enough. We spend more than £500,000 on training grants. A radiographer has a period of training lasting two years. At the end of that period in my area his

basic pay is £23·76 a week. But there is a shortage, so what happens is that after his two years' training he can go to an agency. In my constituency we pay £35 a week to agencies for radiographers whom we have trained in our hospitals to come back and work in the same hospital where they trained. If ever there was an economic nonsense from a Government who believe in management efficiency it is this. Surely something could be done about it.
I know that negotiations are proceeding. The Society of Radiographers has been engaged in negotiations for three years. Next week, through their Whitley machinery, the radiographers will be trying to agree a new grading structure. In the economic crisis into which the Government have forced us, does that mean that any increase to them will be frozen in stage 2 and that, despite their negotiations lasting for three years without any sign of daylight, when, if they are lucky next week, they reach an agreement with the management side, they are to be told that the three years must be extended to the end of phase 2, the end of phase 3 or the end of some other phase?
I referred just now to the problem of danger money for nurses. In the pay given by regional hospital boards to doctors in certain specialties there is also the problem of danger money. The Central Committee for the Hospital Medical Services of the BMA has been having discussions for two years about what amounts to employer's liability to doctors engaged in the National Health Service who by reason of their duties find themselves seriously ill or involved in an accident. A doctor may attend an accident on the MI and find as a result that he is himself involved in an accident. At the moment there is no danger money for danger to doctors. As so often happens, the situation has now reached an impasse, and, as usually happens in Government circles, negotiations are taking place between two departments, with the result that those affected are in danger of falling between two stools. Is it the Department of Employment or the Department of Health and Social Security which should solve the difficulty? I hope that the Under-Secretary will deal with that point.
The last matter that I wish to raise was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West, and it concerns the lowest of the low-paid workers. I refer to those in our community who serve as ancillary staff in hospitals. It has been pointed out already that only 10 hon. Members are involved in approving this Estimate of £41,000,000. However, at least 10 members of the Opposition were interested enough in the subject to march from St. Thomas's Hospital to the Department of Health and Social Security to show our support for the claim being made by the ancillary staff.
What is the position? For a male member of the ancillary staff in the hospital service the present basic rate is £17·48 rising to £21·48. The Government must have realised the measure of the injustice to these workers. They have moved quickly with regard to the freeze and said that their negotiations might continue. The result? They have been offered a meagre £1·84. But one has only to look at what is happening in other sectors which are just coming out of the freeze—gas workers, electricity workers and miners—to see that once again the lowest paid of the lot are made the lowest offer.
The Government talk about their policy being to help the lowest paid get a square deal. How do they justify that when they make such an offer to ancillary staff in National Health Service hospitals? How do they justify the fact that the earnings gap between ancillary staff in hospitals and other manual workers in outside industry is now £8 a week and yet the best offer being made at present is only £1·84?
The Under-Secretary will recall that the late lamented and too speedily wound-up National Board for Prices and Incomes said in December 1970 in its report No. 166 that around a quarter of the whole work force in hospitals had earnings in the lowest tenth of earnings for all men in manual work in Great Britain. If there is some social justice in the Government's wages policy, this Estimate for £41 million is totally inadequate. The Government must do something more for the lowest paid.
When one examines the take-home pay position, once again hospital workers find themselves at the bottom of the heap. Taking into consideration their shift work and the number of hours worked, the rates paid for overtime mean that, compared with any other section of the working class community, hospital workers come out much worse than anyone else.
When the Under-Secretary replies to the debate on this part of Vote 7, I hope that we shall have no more bromides from him. Like him, I have been campaigning against barbiturates, because the nation is taking too many of them. But also we do not want any soothing syrup today. These are basic, fundamental and key questions about the kind of nation that we are and the kind of health service that we run. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not tell us that the Government leave the negotiations with the Whitley Council, that they have every sympathy with the Florence Nightingales' devoted service but that when it comes to a comparison between their earnings and those of their one-time schoolmates the nation cannot afford more.
I have just had the personal experience of coming out of hospital. It was my first hospitalisation for many years. Like every other hon. Member who has had a spell in a public ward in an NHS hospital, I came out feeling eternally grateful. The newspapers never report the successes of the National Health Service. One reads about the service only when something has gone wrong.
I end on what might seem a slightly facetious note. Having spent some time in a public ward, I have come to the conclusion that the Estimate ought to be increased in order to provide nurses with roller skates. I have never seen so much running about and hard work put in for members of the public who are in hospital as done by nurses from seven o'clock in the morning until they go off duty.
I know the problems. I know that in preparing the Estimates the Government are responsible across the board for a totally comprehensive service. But surely the highest priority is not in bricks and mortar or machinery. It is to improve the livelihood and increase the numbers of hospital personnel who give such devoted service to us all.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. John Grant: I want to underline a few of the things that were said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), in his customary robust style, particularly about Class VII of the Supplementary Estimates relating to the Department of Health and Social Security staff and, indeed, the Civil Service as a whole.
The revised provision in this Estimate for the DHSS clearly will not help one bit the crucial situation in the Civil Service and that Department particularly. I have previously spoken in the House on the general subject of the Civil Service pay grievance. My hon. Friend has mentioned it, and I shall not go over that ground again. However, I remind the House and the Under-Secretary that the Chancellor failed completely to respond to the request of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in winding up the debate on the White Paper last week, when he was asked to tell the House that the Government would not rat on the principle. Perhaps the Under-Secretary could put right the Chancellor's omission. That is, perhaps, a little unlikely, but he might consider it.
An article appeared in The Times yesterday on the whole question, written by Mr. Eric Wigham, who was formerly the labour correspondent of that newspaper and a member of the Donavan Commission on Industrial Relations. The article said:
One of the most important things to ensure is that the Government gives a fair deal to its own employees, who have always had the thick end of the stick under incomes policies. Civil servants and others whose pay by specific agreement follows that of other comparable employees, so that they can never set a pattern, should be allowed a catching up stage in any period of freeze or restraint Careful consideration should also be given to those who follow others in a less formal way, as for instance health service manual workers follow those employed by local authorities.
Here is the nub of the argument. They ought to be allowed to catch up, whatever happens subsequently. It is for that reason that we assert that the Prime Minister and the Government are practising discrimination against their employees.
It was not long ago that the DHSS staff took a form of industrial action. They banned overtime. They did it not for money but because they were absurdly

overworked. Countless hours of overtime were being worked, and they were grossly understaffed. The Secretary of State refused to budge. He refused to increase the establishment. None of this whole question of establishment has been spelt out in the Estimates, and it should be. I suspect that the Secretary of State was desperately defending the ridiculous election promise made by the Conservative Party prior to June 1970, that it would reduce the size of the Civil Service. That promise should never have been made, because it was never capable of being kept.
The staff banned overtime so that their lives would be made more tolerable and so that the public would get the service not only which they deserved but to which they were entitled. It was only the pigheadedness of the Minister which caused that industrial action. Eventually we got the agreement, and there is to be an increase in the establishment. It is a pity that that is not spelt out in the Estimates, because it would be helpful to know the exact position.
No doubt the Under-Secretary will know by now that there is a particularly hostile feeling in the Department about the freeze. I have had this reflected to me in representations in my constituency. I shall not be surprised if there is some form of industrial action there in the future. Indeed, from what I hear, I shall be more surprised if there is no industrial action.
In relation to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West, in his exchange with the hon. Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown), I remind the Minister that there is great resentment not only about overtime working but about the fact that many departmental staff, counter clerks in particular, are paying over the counter to claimants for benefit more than they take home in their pay packets, and some of them are themselves eligible for benefit. That is a sad commentary on the Government as an employer.
There are rumblings—I know not whether they have reached the UnderSecretary—in the governmental undergrowth about possible disciplinary measures if civil servants are involved in any form of industrial action. I beseech the Government not to head up that road because their first step in that direction


will escalate any dispute into a most grave confrontation. There is at present tremendous volatility in the Department. The Government should allow the civil servants to catch up on pay before any counter-inflationary policy is applied to them. That would not be discriminating in their favour. It would be fair. That is a word which the Prime Minister uses constantly, but he rarely practises fairness.

5.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): Perhaps I could begin by saying how very sorry I was to hear that the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) had been in hospital, but also how delighted I am that the National Health Service looked after him well and that he returns to us in his typical sprightly form.
With the permission of the House and the particular indulgence of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), I shall start with a short and specific point, as I can dispose of it fairly quickly. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John Grant) raised the matter of the Priestley commitment, so-called. I cannot help the House further than saying that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a debate as recently as 24th January, spelt out in terms an assurance, which I shall quote because it is exactly the point the hon. Member raised. He said that
the Government endorses the principles for determining the pay of the non-industrial Civil Service set out in the Priestley Report and accepted by the Official and Staff sides following its publication. Subject to any requirements of an overriding national policy of general application, the Government intends to continue to reach and implement settlements on the basis of surveys by the Civil Service Pay Research Unit in accordance with these principles and with the existing procedural agreements between the Official and Staff sides.
Having quoted that, the Prime Minister went on to say:
The proviso is subject to any requirements of an overriding national policy of general application. The policy put forward in the White Paper"—
that is, the second White Paper—
and which is being put forward in the legislation before the House, is obviously a policy of an overriding nature and of general

application. That cannot be denied. That is the position as far as the Civil Service is concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1973; Vol. 849, c. 482.]

Mr. John Grant: They have had it.

Mr. Alison: There was a proviso in the assurance relating to the overriding needs of the national situation at the time.
Perhaps I could next take in order the points made by the hon. Member for Fife, West and conclude with a reference to those raised by the hon. Member for Willesden, West.
The hon. Member for Fife, West focused our attention, first, on Class VII, Vote 1, subhead A. I refer to pages 68 and 69 in relation to the figures we are discussing, and particularly page 68. The hon. Member quoted the overall figure of £10·7 million, referred to on page 68. Perhaps I can spell out how this is made up. Of the £10·7 million, £7·11 million is for the cost of the 1972 Civil Service pay increase, effective from 1st January 1972. £1·66 million is for the increase in complement of 4,000 posts in the DHSS—I shall spell this out in further detail shortly—authorised by the Civil Service Department during the current year. A further £1 million is for additional costs of overtime: £0·75 million is for higher rates of graduated and national insurance contributions for staff; and £0·18 million is for agency typing services, which is an accounting adjustment between subheads.
I dare say that the hon. Member for Fife, West is particularly interested in the figure of £1·66 million for the increase in staff numbers during the current year, together with the £1 million for additional overtime costs. The £1·6 million relating to staff increases occurred in the following conditions. In the early months of last year the pressure of supplementary benefit workload in local offices rose substantially for a number of reasons, and while my Department was carrying out an urgent review of staffing needs the growing pressure on staff at local offices gave rise to considerable dissatisfaction which, as I think the House knows, culminated in a ban on voluntary overtime.
In consultation with the staff associations and the Civil Service Department an agreement was reached for the provision of an additional 4,000 permanent


posts made up as follows. There were 1 million—I beg the House's pardon; the Supplementary Benefits Commission would have rejoiced to have got 1 million extra office workers; there were 1,500 for supplementary benefit work and 2,500 to reduce the Department's dependence on casually employed staff and overtime. The agreement, of which this forms part, also includes a review of the Department's staffing procedures, improvements in training programmes and in the physical conditions in local offices, and a study aimed at simplifying and improving work methods. All these matters are now in progress.
Recruitment of additional permanent staff is proceeding as quickly as possible, and by the end of 1972 the staff in post in local offices had increased by 1,000. The present level of casual staff, which is currently between 4,000 and 5,000, will necessarily continue till the full complement of posts is filled and the new staff are trained.
The financial provisions in respect of the additional costs of overtime arise, first, from the higher rates of overtime pay arising from the 1972 Civil Service pay award, secondly, from the more rapid consumption of overtime forecast in the early part of the year because of growing work pressures, and, thirdly, from the complications to supplementary benefit work of the application of the fair rent scheme.
I have done my best to spell out the details of the subhead for which the hon. Member asked in order not to have to write to him.

Mr. William Hamilton: I am grateful for what the Minister has said, but can he tell us whether, in his view, the standard of living of the civil servants has decreased in the last two years?

Mr. Alison: The standard of living of which civil servants?

Mr. William Hamilton: Of those people I referred to who had a 7 per cent. increase in wages as compared with a wages index figure of 22½ per cent. and a prices index increase of 16 per cent. to 18 per cent.

Mr. Alison: I cannot comment on that also—because I have only generalised figures for very large global totals of pay.

The figures go right across the board. But taking only the global figures, the average earnings, published, as the hon. Member knows, for the employed population as a whole, have risen substantially in excess of the rise in the retail prices index.

Mr. William Hamilton: They have not had an increase.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Member also referred to the typical staff nurse pay figure, and asked what it was likely to be in the next six months. That point is not strictly in the purview of the Supplementary Estimate because a claim has been submitted for a further increase of salaries of the nurses, and, clearly, this is subject to negotiation. However, looking at the position as of now—I cannot guarantee what it will be like in six months' time—the typical figure, subject to a very wide range of variations, for a staff nurse would be between £1,089 to £1,299 per annum, going up to £1,383 after three years' service. One has to deduct, say, £185 for lodging charge for resident staff. This, again, is a rather generalised figure; it is subject to wide variations. The hon. Member, with his own family connections with nursing, may be able to produce cases better or worse than that. This is a round figure. I cannot guarantee that it will be like this is six months' time, but I hope the hon. Member will accept that as at least a partial answer to him by word of mouth rather than in writing.

Mr. Ronald Brown: The Minister will realise that these figures are meaningless, because, for instance, the real problem in London is that we cannot get staff nurses to pay them that percentage. We have to go to agencies for agency nurses, and they are being paid in excess of that.

Mr. Alison: The question of agency nurses, which the hon. Member for Willesden, West touched on, is a very difficult and tricky one in the National Health Service. It is essentially a London problem. A whole range of peculiarities arises in London, not least from the wide range of employment opportunities available in London and the competition which there is in the Metropolis for female labour. In this debate I cannot elaborate on the rather specialised


subject of agency nurses and what we are doing to minimise their employment, but I can assure hon. Members that this issue is very much in the fore front of our thought and planning in the Department. We do not like to employ more agency nurses than is absolutely necessary. I am glad that this problem is essentially confined to London.
The hon. Member for Willesden, West went on to raise a number of other points, particularly in relation to the extremely low pay of ancillary workers. I must say that I was a little—what shall I say—cynical—I am afraid I must use that very strong word—about his diatribe against the lowness of pay amongst ancillary workers in the National Health Service. He must know that this question resulted from the days of his own Government. Indeed, the point was made in the Report, No. 29, of March, 1967, by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. There the whole gloomy story was spelt out, and no other solution than on the lines of more effective use of labour, or the introduction of a properly constructed and controlled scheme of payment relating earnings to performance, was looked into. This is nothing new. The hon. Member's own Government, to do them credit, turned the spotlight of the Prices and Incomes Board upon it, and, the veil being drawn aside, it depicted, not a less gloomy but indeed a far gloomier picture than there is now.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the hon. Gentleman cease to ride off on his eulogism? We made mistakes, it is true, but it is no answer to them for this Government to continue them. The wage increase given last year, 1971, was 7½, per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) spoke about the figures. The Minister cannot say that that was our fault. It was his.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman will recall that in the second stage of the freeze the low-paid hospital workers will be very slightly better off—only very slightly—than they were before, and yet the Government profess to be going out of their way to help the low paid. Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the new freeze arrangements hardly alter the take-home pay of hospital workers?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Lady has come on to the category of worker upon whom I want to spend most of my time in addressing the House on this subject. I shall try, without dissimulation, to cover the point she has raised, because it was the category of hospital worker which the hon. Member for Fife, West specifically picked out. It is particularly relevant to our debate because it is one group whose pay is at present subject to negotiation and is fully caught up, as it were, in the complexities of stage 1 and stage 2. It is, therefore, worth looking in some detail at ancillary workers. I will not fail to come to the specific points on the slightly wider issue made by the hon. Member for Willesden, West when the time comes.

Mr. John Grant: I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman says that this group is exceptional in having entered into negotiations. Many groups of workers have negotiations in the pipeline.

Mr. Alison: The value of looking at the position of hospital ancillary staff is that they are the one group for whom a pay claim has been submitted on which negotiations are in train and which has been precisely caught up in the complexities of the freeze and stage 2.
I ask the House to consider hospital ancillary workers in some detail, because they provide an extremely wide range of vital hospital services. They are the ward orderlies, hairdressers, porters, operating theatre attendants, and others perhaps less in the public eye but nevertheless playing an important rôle—kitchen staff, laundry staff, boiler house staff, gardeners and so on. The results of their work may not be apparent to the public but are quickly apparent to patients, in a decline in the quality of food, laundry and heating if those services break down. The hospital ancillary worker has a crucial rôle to play in the complex range of services performed by a hospital in securing the patient's full restoration to health. It is none the less vital for being less spectacular and glamorous than the rôle of the nurse or doctor.
We are discussing an extremely large group of workers. There are 230,000 ancillary workers employed in hospitals in Great Britain, about two-thirds of whom are women. About 90,000 work part-time, nearly all of whom are


women. In full-time equivalent terms the total is about 203,000, of whom two-thirds are women. The annual wage bill for this group is £238 million.
The rates of pay and conditions of service for the group are negotiated by the Ancillary Staffs Council, which is one of the Whitley Councils set up in 1948 for the National Health Service. The Whitley Council which covers ancillary workers throughout Great Britain is composed of two sides, a trade union side with four unions represented—the National Union of Public Employees, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the General and Municipal Workers' Union and the Transport and General Workers' Union—and a management side composed of representatives of hospital management, namely, members or officers of hospital authorities and members of the health departments. The Whitley Councils are autonomous bodies, not appointed by Ministers but the implementation of their agreements requires ministerial approval under the relevant National Health Service regulations.
The procedure is for the trade union side to present claims for improvement in rates of pay and conditions of service and for these to result in negotiated settlements following discussion in the council. In practice, for many years these settlements have been very much in line with settlements reached for manual workers in local government service. That is understandable, because there are considerable similarities—in the type of work done, the common trade unions and in the similar machinery which has descended from pre-National Health Service days. This link with local government work, although traditional, has never been either automatic or formalised. Each negotiating body—the Ancillary Staffs Council and the National Joint Council for Local Authorities—has retained complete freedom to negotiate separately for its staff.
It might be helpful to mention the current rates of pay of ancillary staff. The basic male grade B rate is £18 a week outside London, although there is an agreement that staff requesting it can increase earnings on a virtually guaranteed basis to £19 a week. For women the basic grade A rate is £15·28, again outside

London. These rates are increased by an extra £2·40 a week for London weighting. Above grade A the rates rise to a maximum of £26·36 per week for men and £24·28 per week for women.
The average weekly earnings are somewhat higher than the basic rates. For men the average weekly earnings are £27·13 a week and for women £20·60 a week. Although 8 per cent. of the men in this category earn under £20 a week, 28 per cent. earn more than £35 a week. The level is not high by national average standards, and this I readily concede—indeed, the NBPI report made this clear as long ago as 1967—but at least the earnings levels are substantially above the basic rates.

Dr. Summerskill: What plans are being made to implement the Equal Pay Act? The Minister has said that the male and female rates are rising by an extra £2·40. Surely the rate for the female should rise slightly higher than that if the Act is to be implemented by 1975?

Mr. Alison: The £2·40 is the London weighting figure, the extra allowance paid to men and women working in London. It was conceded irrespective of the stage that had been reached in the implementation of equal pay. It was decided that men and women should receive an equal increase and that is to the advantage of women. There is no differential against them in London weighting. Equal pay is being implemented by the steady one-third increase and I shall have a word to say about that in the context of the current negotiations.
Against that background of the basic rates of pay and earnings I should like to say something about the negotiations now going on for the ancillaries. In the summer of last year the trade unions submitted a claim for a £4 increase in basic rates, for a 35-hour instead of a 40-hour week, for four weeks' paid holiday instead of three weeks, and for two additional Bank holidays. The claim would have cost about £100 million and increased the wage bill by about 40 per cent. The operative date of the claim was to be 13th December 1972–12 months after the preceding agreement. Negotiations had just begun when stage 1 of the Government's counter-inflation measures was announced on 6th November.
Negotiations on the parallel claim for local government manual workers had also opened, the operative date being at the beginning of November, again, the anniversary of the preceding agreement 12 months ago. The local authority negotiations were brought to a rapid conclusion on the eve of 6th November, the cut-off date for stage 1. In consequence the local government manual workers received an increase of £2·40 for men and women, plus two extra days holiday, from the beginning of November last year. Since the settlement with the ancillary workers was not reached by 6th November, the standstill applied to them, whereas it did not apply to local government manual workers. Therefore, the operative date had to be deferred until the end of the 90-day deferment. Furthermore, the amount payable had to be subject to the terms which were to be settled in stage 2 of the Government's counter-inflation policy.
The management side of the Whitley Council considered the first White Paper which introduced the freeze, and at the November meeting of the Whitley Council informed the trade union side that it thought it necessary to defer making an offer until the terms of stage 2 were available. They wanted to conduct meaningful negotiations and an offer made during stage 1, when both the operative date and the amount of any future settlement were still unknown, would not have been meaningful.
Both sides of the Whitley Council made strong representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services about the pay of ancillary staff and at the end of November my right hon. Friend, accompanied by Ministers from the Scottish and Welsh Offices, received a deputation.
My right hon. Friend acknowledged the unfortunate—to put it mildly—timing of the standstill so far as it affected ancillary staff, and said that he would consider whether to exempt them from it. There was no escape from the conclusion that exemption for one group of workers would inevitably lead to claims from other groups, and would undermine the efficacy of the standstill and the subsequent stage 2 period. My right hon. Friend had to say with great regret that he could not arrange any exemption for the ancillary staff, nor could he give them

any assurance about their prospects under stage 2, which was then being formulated. However, he promised to represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to his other ministerial colleagues the strong views expressed by the Whitley Council on behalf of the ancillary workers, and I can assure the House that he did not fail to do this.
Stage 2 of the Government's policy has now been published and under it the operative date for a settlement for ancillary staffs becomes 14th March—a deferment of 90 days. A settlement is subject to the limit prescribed in the White Paper of £1 per head plus 4 per cent. of the total earnings of the group during the preceding year, excluding overtime. Negotiations have been resumed on the basis of the White Paper proposals, and I understand that the management side has put forward to the trade union side its assessment of the sum available for a settlement. This amounts to about £20 million which, if shared equally among men and women, would give an increase of £1·84 per week. This would represent an increase in the overall wage bill of about 10 per cent. and would give increases of 10 to 12 per cent. for men and women in the lowest grade rising to about 7 per cent. for those in the top grades.
I understand that the trade union side put forward counter-proposals and that the Whitley Council is to meet again shortly to continue negotiations. It would be improper, and indeed impossible, for me to speculate about what form of agreement may finally emerge from the negotiations. We all wish the greatest possible success to both sides in achieving an agreed settlement on the basis of what was offered. As a result of the deliberate policy of the Government in leaving scope for negotiation, there is considerable opportunity for a cut of the cake which will give considerable satisfaction and improvement to the various grades. The White Paper allows a certain flexibility in terms of the movement towards the elimination of the men-women differentials. These are matters which are being looked at in some detail in the current negotiation. I would prefer not to be too specific about what scope there might be, but it is conceivable that a satisfactory agreement may result. It is perhaps as well that I say as little as possible about that situation.
It is appreciated that the absence of some special provision for ancillary workers in stage 2 greatly dismayed and disappointed ancillary staff, and we understand the significance of the traditional link which has existed between their rates of pay and rates paid to local government manual workers. We are well aware that the Government action against inflation has interrupted that traditional, if not formalised, link. We would like to have restored it in stage 2, but we have had to conclude that there was no way in which ancillary workers could have been treated as a special case without including a great many others.
Stage 2 will operate until the autumn and it will include the setting up of a pay board. The Government intend to consult the pay board on how to deal with anomalies, particularly the broken link with the manual local government workers. We are hopeful that this aspect of the pay of ancillary staff can be dealt with, in consultation with the board, in stage 3.
The hon. Member for Willesden, West asked about restructuring agreements. I can do no better than to ask him to refresh his memory by referring to paragraph 27 of the White Paper, under the heading of "Productivity and Pay Restructuring Schemes".
The hon. Gentleman also asked about possible dangers to nurses working in hazardous situations, particularly in renal dialysis units. Discussions have been held with representatives of staff about improving benefits in the event of death or injury occurring to staff while on duty, and substantial improvements in existing benefits have been agreed in principle. A separate rate claim in respect of improvements for junior hospital doctors is still under consideration. Therefore, there are prospects for improvements.
I hope that I have dealt adequately with the matters of detail which have been raised, and I hope that I shall not have any letters to write to the hon. Member for Fife, West. I trust that I have given the House a fair reply on some complicated and detailed points which have been raised. I have given the House specific information about the important negotiations which are taking

place on the position of ancillary workers, and we can only hope that they will have a happy and fruitful outcome.

Orders of the Day — DERELICT LAND

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: I should like for a few moments to discuss grants for reclamation and derelict land in development and intermediate areas under an additional programme within the provisions of the Local Employment Act 1972. This item relates to Class VI, Vote 4, Subhead F4(4), and involves provision for additional expenditure amounting to £800,000.
I wish to concentrate on two matters. The Minister will know from correspondence which we have exchanged that a water board in my constituency is anxious to undertake schemes which would improve the appearance of areas of their land. The board would like to have financial assistance in the form of grants under the heading which we are now discussing, but it has been told that grants are given only to county, county borough or district councils—that is to say, only to local authorities. My plea is that these grants should be extended to public bodies, such as water boards, the National Coal Board, the railways, and other public bodies. This would enable those public bodies to involve themselves in the clearance of derelict land.
The board which drew my attention to this matter has abandoned some sources of water supply and taken on new sources. It would like to restore those abandoned areas either to their original state or certainly to improve their appearance.
It is a pity that we do not do all in our power to help boards which are anxious to do this work. The board has been told that it ought to try to persuade local authorities in that area to get on with the job and that they would be eligible for grant.
On 23rd May last my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment
whether he will take steps to grant annual sums to the nationalised industries to be devoted towards the restoration of land made derelict by their operations on the cessation of their operations


The answer was:
Generous grants are available to local authorites towards the cost of acquisition of derelict land, and then reclamation whoever the original owner may be. There is no reason why the acquisition procedure should not be applied to land belonging to nationalised industries in respect of which no requirements for restoration had been imposed under the Town and Country Planning Acts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May 1972; Vol. 837, c. 353–4.]
I quote that deliberately to anticipate an answer that the Minister will possibly give to my argument. I appreciate that answer has already been given, but I bring up this subject anew because there is great force in the argument.
If the water board assisted the local authority financially the grant would be payable only on the reduced figure. There fore, the local authority would always have to find a sum of money, and the water board could not make up the difference.
I am anxious that the help should not be given to the water board because its main income is often derived far away from the point at which the water is stored. If a board is prepared to spend money which it has collected in one area on another area we should encourage it to do so at all costs. The area where the water is stored is virtually always rural and is usually a poor area. Therefore, priority is not given to work of this kind as the authorities cannot afford it. We should do all in our power to ensure that water boards involve themselves in the work.
I am also concerned for the future under the new structure of local government and the new water boards with which we are likely to be faced. They will be much larger bodies. Will they be as concerned over small local projects to clear derelict land as existing bodies? It would be an advantage to have two spearheads attacking this problem—not only the councils but other bodies, like water authorities.
I have confined my remarks in the main to water authorities, but what I have said would equally apply to British Rail and the National Coal Board in other spheres. Having more than one agency operating in this work would be of tremendous advantage.
British Rail has many abandoned railway stations which have been allowed to

become derelict eyesores for far too long. An example in my constituency is Torpantau. The Minister will know that this is a very beautiful area but there is this eyesore of an abandoned railway station. Again, the station at Builth Road is now only half-used. The other half is a mess and needs clearing up. We ought to encourage British Rail to do something about the problem.
There are schemes that the Coal Board could undertake. The dereliction that we suffer in so many areas—Glamorgan and Monmouthshire in particular—has not been of the local authorities' making. Yet they are to be responsible for clearing it up. The Coal Board should do something about this problem. I accept that at times assistance is provided by the Coal Board, but it should be its job entirely with Government assistance in the form of grants such as local authorities now receive.
I do not expect the Minister to give an undertaking today that the Government will take up this matter. Obviously he will not have power to do that. However, I hope that we can extract from him a promise to impress upon the Government the need to amend legislation so that what we are seeking can take place.
My second point concerns the global sum available for improvements and clearance of derelict land. Although the sums allocated are increasing each year, there is a danger that we will make insufficient progress. It appears that, as with most projects, the simpler and thus the cheaper projects will have been tackled first. That means that the schemes now coming on will be more costly. Furthermore, schemes will automatically be more costly because of inflation. So, with these factors in mind, I think it would be dangerous to think that, because the Estimates allow for about twice the figure of three years ago, that much more is being done.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): Will the hon. Gentleman make clear to me and to the House whether he is now referring to derelict land clearance or to the "Operation Eyesore" programme?

Mr. Roderick: I am thinking particularly of derelict land reclamation. I recognise that greater sums are to be spent in this area. However, increasing


costs and the increasing complexity of clearance schemes make them so much more costly. Therefore, the amount to be spent on this work does not necessarily mean that more land is being cleared. It may be marginally extra.
In this day and age, with our experience over the last few years, we ought to be racing ahead with schemes, not just increasing them marginally. I recognise that we are spending more, but more should be done. The whole concept of the clearance of derelict land having grown up and so much having been learned, we ought to be racing ahead. The extra expenditure is partly forced upon us to create jobs. So, all in all, we are not increasing expenditure through enlightenment of this problem. If we are serious about this matter I contend that greater sums needs to be spent in forthcoming years.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I should like to make a few comments on what has been said by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick). I apologise for the fact that I was delayed for a short time when the hon. Member began his speech.
I accept a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman said about the need for greater expenditure on the clearance of derelict land, but I think he will agree that the figures represent not only an increase in monetary terms, but, even allowing for the changed value of money, a substantial increase in absolute and real terms.

Mr. Roderick: I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that this was almost an aside in my speech. The main purport of my argument was on another issue entirely.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman, towards the end of his speech, commented on this point. I support the main import of what he said. I put it to the Minister that whereas these sums may seem real, substantial and increasing, the need for derelict land clearance in Wales is aggravated more than in most parts of the United Kingdom.
I accept that there is dereliction in other parts of the United Kingdom—for example, parts of the Black Country and the North-East of England. The hon.

Gentleman, like myself, has seen dereliction in parts of Durham, Northumberland and Scotland. I do not deny that. But the overpowering effect of dereliction in parts of South Wales, in particular, is such that there is a major need, if we wish to make the Principality beautiful, for reclamation to take place. It is a fact that some of the worst disfigurement has occurred in areas which were originally of great natural beauty. My hon. Friend will be aware of the beauty that existed perhaps 200 years ago in the valleys which led up from the South Wales coast towards Brecon and Radnorshire. They must have been extraordinarily beautiful. It is possible that we can look forward to a time when a lot of that beauty will be recreated.
An effort is now being made by agencies in Wales to promote the growth of tourism, which is of such great value to the Welsh economy. Disfigurement is a disadvantage when seeking to promote tourism, and to that extent I support what has been said by the hon. Gentleman. I have developed a part of his argument which, as he said, was not his main theme. However, I feel that the matter I have raised is of tremendous importance. I am sure that my hon. Friend has the matter in mind. I hope that he will not mind my underlining it.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. William Edwards: I wish to return to the main and valid point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick). I shall refer to two particular aspects so far as they affect development areas in North Wales and the water boards.
First, there is a difference between the old-established water boards which were established by small authorities and the kind of water authorities that we may have in a county like mine where large tracts of land were acquired by outside authorities. In those cases I should not like to encourage water boards to extend or develop their own domains and to do work which should be done by local authorities. I should like to see the water boards encouraged to hand back the land which is surplus to their requirements to the local authority in whose area they operate. I shall not make specific references as I do not want to prolong the


debate. However, I think that that is a way in which the water boards should be guided by the Welsh Office. The land which they do not need for their essential operation should be handed back to the local authorities.
There is a major contribution to be made by British Rail. I hope that the Minister will not take that as an indication that I want the whole of the Cambrian coast to be declared derelict land. However, there are large areas, not only within my constituency but elsewhere, which require attention. It is sad to see that concurrent with the improvement of the operation of British Rail there remains the dereliction which has taken place and which has been allowed to remain at our stations. It has happened because British Rail's property department is never equal to the efficiency of its passenger operation department.
I do not think that any encouragement to deal with derelict land should be given to British Rail. British Rail's costing system is out of this world. For example, it said that it would cost £3,000 to improve a bridge in my constituency for one season only. In fact, the whole of the work was done by my local authority for £800. I should not like to encourage British Rail to undertake the task of land clearance.
We should encourage British Rail to dispose of its surplus land. It should hand it back to the local authorities on condition that should it need it again for the modernisation or improvement of its railway system it could have it back. Some of the stations in Wales are a disgrace. There is derelict land alongside the stations which British Rail do not use and never will use in the foreseeable future. I should like the Minister to ask the boards to make a contribution towards the valuable and important programme that was started by the last Labour Government.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: I wish to refer to a problem with which the Minister is familiar. For six years the Rhondda Borough Council, the Welsh Office and the Coal Board have been negotiating for the removal of an ugly tip which is known in my part of the world as the Banana Tip of Ferndale. In

fact, the matter was settled and an imaginative scheme was agreed upon. But, because the Coal Board suddenly found it did not need the coal which would be reclaimed, the cost has become exorbitant. Consequently, a worthwhile scheme is being lost.
Something appears to be radically wrong. Are we to reach a situation where the Coal Board can sterilise a nasty, ugly and vicious tip because at the moment it does not want the coal? That approach could apply to many other similar tips throughout South Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) urged that some consideration should be given to the abhorrences that receive grants. If the scheme to which I have referred was adopted without the Coal Board's help it would cost one half of the total amount of money which is coming to Wales for this sort of work. If a worthwhile scheme is not to be lost, is not it about time that the amount of available money was increased? I hope that the Minister will have another serious look at the problem which I have mentioned because the people of Rhondda are very concerned about the matter.

6.38 p.m.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I am glad to rise to answer this short but valuable debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) for initiating it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) for underlining the importance of tourism. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) who spoke of the importance of the possible disposal of land which is surplus to British Rail's requirements. The hon. Gentleman said that some of the land is becoming an eyesore in Wales. Obviously I cannot comment further than to say that I have taken his message on board. I feel certain that what he has said will be read by those responsible.
The hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies), as he rightly said, has had a number of meetings with his constituents and myself about the important and difficult question of the Banana Tip. It has been an extraordinarily baffling and difficult problem to answer. Nobody would have been happier than I to have sent him away with a helpful


answer in view of all that he has done for his constituents and the councillors concerned, who are day to day faced with the complaints and protests of their constituents.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Coal Board's attitude. All that I shall say in defence of the Coal Board is that markets of various sorts change from day to day and the sort of coal which would have been coming from the Banana Tip is unfortunately in over-supply today. It is not merely a question of production; it is also a question of consumption of this type of fuel by the Central Electricity Generating Board. We shall continue to look at the matter and try to help, but it is very difficult.
The Special Environmental Assistance Scheme, popularly called "Operation Eyesore", was launched by the Government in 1972. Its basic aim was to create more employment by carrying out minor schemes of environmental improvement. The invitation was extended to local authorities to submit schemes which, when approved, would attract central Government grant at the rate of 85 per cent. in the Welsh Development Area and 75 per cent. elsewhere in the Principality. This assistance was available in respect of work carried out before 30th June 1973. Basically it was intended to improve the appearance of neglected and unsightly land and to bring it into beneficial use.
The scheme has been a resounding success. The reduction in the level of unemployment against the normal seasonal trends must in part be due to the success of the scheme. The expenditure and injection of £4 million by the Government and local government must have had its effect, not only in employment opportunities created by contractors or by men employed by local authorities on the various sites, but, to a minor extent, in the ancillary services producing such things as concrete pipes used in culverting streams and the maintenance of plant and machinery. It is clear therefore that some employment opportunities have been created.
But equally important is the effect which the scheme is having on improving the environment. I want to give credit to the speed with which local authorities'

members and officers have grasped this opportunity. I have served in local government myself, and I remember that we were pretty quick to move at a focal authority level if we considered that the Government were offering us money for a worthwhile object. Whether the schemes have been prepared by engineers, surveyors or planners of the various authorities, or whether by using the services of private consultants, it is remarkable that the derelict land unit of the Welsh Office has considered over 1,400 schemes in the last year.
Undoubtedly the level of grant aid from the Government has made the scheme attractive to local authorities and it is seen as a joint partnership. The short term effect is considerable, but it is the long term benefits to our people in Wales and to their quality of life and living about which the Government are concerned. For too long parts of Wales have been despoiled and even where improvements have been made there is of course the problem of vandalism. Vandalism is not confined to the young. Adults who dump cars, mattresses, bedsteads and builders' rubble are vandals as well. This is a problem which can be overcome over the years only by a process of education in its widest sense.
If people live in the shadows of colliery spoil tips or slate quarry wasters they deserve even more to have their local environment improved. By clearing the industrial dereliction, by the scheme of environmental improvement about which I am speaking, by the creation of general improvement areas and slum clearance areas under the housing Acts, together with the grants available for house improvements, then and only then will people become fully conscious that there is something to be safeguarded and nurtured.
I have mentioned that over 1,400 schemes have already been approved and every part of the Principality has benefited. It is true to say that every constituency represented by Welsh Members has had a share. While the environment requires considerable uplift in the industrial areas, nevertheless rural centres have also been included within the scheme. When the scheme was introduced, it was clear that it would be impossible to produce a comprehensive list of work which would be eligible. We said that each


case would be considered on its merits; but we gave certain examples of the kind of work that the scheme was intended to cover—clearing up untidy plots or bomb sites; cleaning and painting buildings where their existing condition was unsightly; clearing up disused allotments; the removal of debris from the beds of rivers or canals and the improvement of banks and towpaths; and, finally, the planting of trees to improve the appearance of drab and unsightly areas.
While local authorities would probably have chosen to concentrate on properties in their own ownership, nevertheless, where land was privately owned or was part of a nationalised concern, providing the agreement of the owner was forthcoming the scheme could go forward. Where appropriate, a contribution from such private owners was sought where there was likely to be some significant benefit to them.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor referred to the proposals for the North Breconshire and Radnorshire Water Board. As he said, I wrote to him about this matter on 19th January, and perhaps the House will bear with me if I quote what I said:
Grant aid for both the reclamation of derelict land and for Special Environmental Assistance Schemes is given only to local authorities, although that need not prevent statutory undertakings from benefiting from the schemes. If there are any instances where the Radnorshire and North Breconshire Water Board wish to take advantage of the assistance given under the schemes they can approach the District or County Council concerned, asking them to submit the proposals to the Welsh Office on the Board's behalf. It would, of course, he up to the Board to convince the local authority of the worth of the scheme because the local authority would have to bear 15 per cent. of the cost.
Should the Board wish to discuss any specific proposals, I suggest that they contact my officials of the Derelict Land Unit who will be pleased to advise them.
That advice still stands, and I am glad to be able to refer to it publicly in the House today.
While all the examples I have given have been considered, many unusual projects were considered and accepted, such as the clearance of the scars resulting from war-time structures and the clearance and treatment of disused burial grounds and churchyards. I congratulate the various church authorities of all denominations which co-operated with

the local authorities in these imaginative schemes. Let me pick out a few examples that may interest hon. Gentlemen.
Towards the end of the year—and I see that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) is in his place—a service of thanksgiving was held in St. John's Church, Aberdare, an area which is a focal point for the town. The original churchyard was cluttered with headstones and overgrown. But for a cost of some £5,000 the area has been transformed by the removal of the headstones to the boundary wall, which enabled the area to be landcaped, and seats for the general public were provided by the local authority. I believe that the inhabitants of Aberdare are overjoyed by this improvement.
Another scheme which will show benefits over the years is the dredging and clearance of weeds in the Crumlin arm of the Monmouthshire Canal, which traverses the areas of Risca, Magor and St. Mellons and Newport Borough. About £70,000 will be spent on this.
A highly imaginative scheme, drawn up by consultant landscape architects, briefed by Wrexham Rural District Council, to improve the situation in the parish of Cefn Mawr has cost £100,000 and consists of 90 minor schemes. The local residents were consulted in the type of improvement they required.
At Haverfordwest, the river bank and surrounding areas of the Cleddau will benefit from a joint scheme submitted by the Pembrokeshire County Council and Haverfordwest Borough Council. Glamorgan County Council has been responsible, in an agency capacity on some schemes, for a large number of schemes throughout the county area and, as befits our major international airport, some worthwhile improvement has been made at Rhoose Airport.
In Mid Wales, there have been improvements to the river walks in Brecon and Llanidloes and in Newton a scheme devised by the Newtown Development Corporation adjoining the River Severn improvement scheme will produce great benefits.
Many Members and local authorities, stimulated by the Civic Trust, have written asking for an extension of the scheme, and this is presently being considered. I can say no more about this


today. But at least this pressure underlies the success of the scheme and the impact it has already made upon the environment in such a short time. I repeat that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor for raising this most important subject this afternoon.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I apologise to the Minister of State for speaking after him. It is in no way my intention to be censorious of anything he has said. I merely wish to mention two matters which I would have raised before he spoke had I myself not been tardy in rising.
We are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) for introducing a subject which is of very considerable importance to Wales—one of the most beautiful places upon earth but a place which still bears thousands of scars inflicted on it by the exploitation of industry. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides accept that the work done from 1967 onwards in relation to dereliction is one of the most inspiring and satisfying records of successive Governments over the last six years.
My first point relates to derelict stations, of which in Wales we have many hundreds, on railway lines which still provide passenger services. In some cases there are many of us who would say that there was no good case for such closure. On some lines one can discern a pattern of deliberate running down of the services over the years preceding the coup de grace when the Railways Board demonstrates to the transport users consultative committee that the station concerned is making a monumental loss. In some other cases many of us would have sympathy with the decision of the board to close stations many years ago. In so doing it was able very greatly to reduce the journey time and, indeed, to make that stretch of line more attractive.
When these stations were closed the communities they served were very small and the contribution to railway finances was minimal. Now, perhaps 10 or 20 years after those closures, many of the communities have completely changed their character. There has been considerable

development in the area. The fact that a small station—or even a large station—was closed years ago should not mean that it is a decision taken for all time.
I ask the Minister to use his good offices to draw the attention of toe Board to many such cases—I have two or three in mind in the Aberystwyth-Shrewsbury area, where there are lines which at the moment very much wish to increase their passenger turnover. Let the board know that there is a splendid opportunity to do this by reopening certain stations where there has been considerable growth in those communities and where there is now great potential of good will to he exploited if they were to become active again.
My second point is a purely constituency matter. One does not think of Cardiganshire as being an area that bears many of the scars of dereliction that have been mentioned in the debate, but I refer now particularly to the dereliction we suffer as a result of lead mining up to about 30 or 40 years ago. The Minister of State will know that on many occasions I have raised the subject of the poisoning of two very important rivers, the Ystwyth and the Rheidol. There have been many splendid pioneering developments over the last 20 or 30 years to make these living rivers once again and to combat the pollution from lead and zinc poisoning which have bedevilled them over the years. Some of that poisoning still flows into the rivers from the flooding of the mine adits.
I should be very grateful if the Welsh Office would use its good offices, with other Government Departments to give advice to the appropriate bodies, and see whether there is any assistance which local authorities in the area can give to help combat what is admittedly a small in scale but nevertheless a very pertinent consideration of pollution in relation to a county which at the moment happily does not face the problems which so many hon. Members have mentioned.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) has raised two very important points. I must point out that to some extent this debate is limited to Class VI, Vote 4, F 4(4), though this in no way diminishes the


importance of what lie has said. On the railway point, I can only refer to what I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards). On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I can only say that if there is any specific and serious matter in relation to this very difficult question of lead poisoning of rivers, I shall be happy to pursue it if he takes it up in correspondence.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE)

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Greville Janner: I am happy to have this opportunity to raise the subject of the procedure and practice of the Attendance Allowance Board in the light of a decision of the Chief Commissioner of National Insurance concerning Jimmy Martin, a young lad in my constituency born with no legs and with only one arm, whose case is in its own way a test case potentially involving 30,000 or more families In many cases the youngsters concerned are considerably worse off than Jimmy. In many cases they are mongols, youngsters who are mentally disabled, and sometimes the physical disablement is worse.
We have here a case that has gone on a most erratic and strange course in the past year, and the parents concerned are still being prevented from obtaining any allowance whatever in respect of the considerable disablement of their son I am concerned not merely for those parents, nor, indeed, only for the 30,000 or so families who have suffered in the same way by not getting an allowance at present; I am also concerned for all those who have to appear in due course before the commissioner but who are prevented from appearing before the board.
I am concerned with the system of justice which allows a secret consideration of a matter which can affect the entire future of a child and his family. I am concerned with a secret hearing where there is no right of appeal on or any decision on fact which is arrived at at that secret hearing. I consider, and I shall suggest, that the procedure is not only intolerable, and always has been,

but is disgraceful in view of the decision of the Chief Commissioner of National Insurance who questioned whether the entire procedure was not contrary to natural justice.
I should not have raised the matter here had I not received a letter from the board in which it has completely ignored the reference in the Chief Commissioner's decision to the rules of natural justice; and a letter from the Minister himself who likewise has seen fit totally to ignore this devastating criticism by the Chief Commissioner of the procedures of this tribunal.
I also raise the matter because the whole question of these procedures and the moneys to be spent on them is vital at the present time. We can draw a very clear and important comparison with other procedures. There is, for example, the procedure of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which recently, in a private hearing, saw fit to award the parents of a child who was killed the sum of £60, there being no right of appeal of any sort.
By way, perhaps, of contrast there is the hearing in a certain bankruptcy matter which has been of grave concern in the House and in the country where there is no right of appearance on behalf of people whose good names are defamed in a place where privilege applies. I shall in due course suggest that not only should the procedures of the Attendance Allowance Board be totally overhauled but that the procedures of tribunals such as bankruptcy tribunals dealing with public hearings in general should follow in the same train.
I am concerned, first, with a curious Vote. In 1971–72 the sum of £570,000 was voted for this board. It seems a strange arrangement that in 1972–73 this figure dropped to £100,000. Why? In the present Estimates it has gone up again from £100,000 to £550,000. I should have thought that that increase would have allowed for the appointment of sufficient members to the board for oral hearings to take place at the request of applicants. It would be a rare request, but it would enable precedents to be established and arguments to be heard.
It was a strange fact, referred to by the Chief Commissioner of National


Insurance in open court, that my appearance before him was the first occasion on which counsel had argued an appeal on behalf of an applicant regarding the extremely complicated legal interpretation of the statute. He took a day over the hearing. He reserved his decision for about seven weeks, and the decision, if I may say so with the greatest respect, is a model. It is disgraceful that the criticisms that he levelled against the lack of natural justice in the procedures of the board should be ignored, both by the board in its letter—and, presumably, in its future actions—and by the Minister in his reply.
I should like to preface what I have to say with two matters. The first is that this debate is not intended in any way to be an attack on the members of the board personally. So far as I can see, the few members who sit on it have imposed upon them grave difficulties both in doing justice and in enabling justice manifestly to be seen to be done. It is a basic principle of our courts, and it should be a principle of our tribunals, that justice should not only be done but that people should feel that they are getting justice.
It is plain from the Minister's letter that the members of the board can scarcely cope with the work that they have to do. I am glad that we are voting more money. I hope that there will be more people to do this work and that they will at least be able to listen to arguments, which apparently they are not prepared to do now.
I first questioned the procedures of the board in October last year. I thought that it was a proper matter for the Government to deal with. I received from the Minister a letter dated 11th October, in which he said:
I have noted your concern that there is no provision for representation before the Attendance Allowance Board in connection with the review of cases. As I have already explained this is, in the first instance, a matter for the Board and I am advised that, in the light of the tasks placed upon the Board by Parliament, both in the 1970 Act and in the 1972 Act, they believe their present procedures are the right ones.
Is that belief still held? I ask the Minister whether in the light of the criticisms of the Chief Commissioner, that belief

is still held by the board and, secondly, whether it is held by him.
The Minister said in his letter:
they believe their present procedures are the right ones. Although, as you say, there is no appeal on points of fact, you are, of course, aware that on review copies of all the documents to be placed before the Board are sent to the claimant or his representative for any comment they wish to make.
I spent a whole day arguing before the commissioner. One cannot put that kind of argument into a document. It is impossible for a person who is doing the job on a professional basis to do it in that way, and it is doubly impossible for a Member of Parliament who is appearing on behalf of a constituent in that capacity. It cannot be done. Arguments cannot be made in a document. One cannot, in a document, answer all the questions that arise.
My second preface is that I appreciate that the Minister himself is deeply concerned with the needs of disabled people. I hope that he will not regard my criticism of the procedures of the board as personal criticism of him. I am sure that had he the means at his disposal, and were he solely responsible for what was done, the position would be different. But, having seen fit to assume the cloak of responsibility he must accept that responsibility. If he is going to don the wig of justice in this matter, it is for him to see that justice is done and that the procedures of the board which he controls are fair and in accordance with natural justice, which quite clearly at present they are not.
I now turn to the decision with which we are primarily concerned. It is the decision of the Chief Commissioner of National Insurance, No. 10/72 and given after an oral hearing. It is signed "R. G. Micklethwait, Chief Commissioner". I make no apology for taking substantial quotes from this decision, because the debate is about the decision and about the lack of action by the Government or by the Attendance Allowance Board arising from this—a lack of action which, I repeat, affects many thousands of families in this country.
He said:
My decision is that the claimant's application for leave to appeal against the Attendance Allowance Board's decision dated 31st May 1972 ("the Board's decision") is granted, and


that the Board's decision is erroneous in point of law and is set aside.
In December 1963 the claimant gave birth to a son, to whom I will refer simply as James, who unfortunately was and is seriously deformed in three of his four limbs. Paragraph 5 of the Board's decision (paragraph 10 below) contains their findings of fact as to his condition. His left arm is normal. He is mentally normal. He can read, and he can write with his left hand. He goes to an ordinary school and not a special one.
I pay tribute to the parents for having brought about the situation that this boy, with this kind of disablement, can lead that kind of normal life. It is a tremendous achievement on their part and on the part of Jimmy.
The decision continues:
Down to a point this case took the course with which we have become familiar in many other cases. The claimant made a claim for an attendance allowance on form DS 2C after reading leaflet NI 182 as directed by that form. A report dated 29th October 1971"—
which is many moons ago—
on form DS 4C was obtained from the family doctor. On 2nd November 1971 a delegate of the Board decided that neither of the medical conditions in section 4(2) of the 1970 Act (below) was satisfied. The claimant wrote two letters objecting to the decision. A further medical report on form DS 4C(R) dated 12th December 1971 was obtained from another medical practitioner a member of the medical boarding panel. On 28th December 1971 the controller of the Attendance Allowance Unit at Blackpool wrote telling the claimant that the decision made by the Attendance Allowance Board was to be put before the Board with certain documents and inviting observations. The claimant submitted her observations in a letter dated 30th December 1971. On 3rd January 1972 another delegate decided that the decision of 2nd November 1971 was not to be revised. Down to this point the procedure was the same as in many other cases.
The claimant was and is a constituent of"—
and he refers to me—
who was good enough to take an interest in her case, and arranged for the claimant, her husband, James and Mr. Janner himself to call upon the Secretary of State for Social Services in London. The visit took place on 14th March 1972. On 17th March 1972 the Secretary of State personally wrote to the chairman of the Board requesing the Board to review the decisions of 2nd November 1971 and 3rd January 1972 under section 6(3)(a) and 6(3)(b) of the 1970 Act respectively. On 11th April a letter was written on behalf of the Board informing the claimant that the papers had been considered by the Board on 22nd March, that they noted that there had been two previous medical reports, and that they did not as matters stood themselves wish to obtain a further report. If, however, the claimant had any

additional information she was invited to submit it. A copy of the letter was sent to Mr. Janner, who replied on 17th April 1972.
On 31st May 1972 the Board of nine members presided over by the chairman decided that the determinations of 3rd January 1972 and 2nd November 1971 were not to be revised. The result of course was that all that the claimant got was the same decision but with differently expressed reasons. The claimant applied for leave to appeal to the Commissioner on two grounds: that the Board's decision was erroneous in point of law in that they had failed to hold that on the proper interpretation of section 4(2) as modified by regulation 7(4) (below) James required (a) prolonged or repeated attention during the night or (b) continual supervision from another person in order to avoid substantial danger to himself.
At the hearing before me Mr. Janner, who represented the claimant in his capicity as an MP, was without objection granted leave to add a third ground, namely that the review decision did not contain reasons sufficient to comply with regulation 14(2) (below).
The application clearly raises arguable points of law and I therefore grant it.
It is extraordinary that nine members of the board, headed by the chairman, could come to a decision on those complicated points of law without having had the opportunity of having the law argued before them. Argument on points of law is not arranged for the benefit of the people involved in the proceedings. It is to assist the court, the tribunal or the board to come to a fair and just decision. A board that shuts itself off from hearing legal argument on behalf of a claimant does one of two things; either it hears no legal argument—and we do not know whether the board heard any—or it hears legal argument on behalf of the Department only and not on behalf of the claimant, which is manifestly grossly unjust. Did the board of nine members, headed by the chairman, decide against the family with or without hearing legal submissions? If they heard legal submissions, on whose behalf were those submissions made? They were not made on behalf of the parents of Jimmy Martin. Does not the Minister consider that to be contrary to natural justice?
The Chief Commissioner, having granted the application, proceeded to deal with it as an appeal. He then set out details of the relevant regulations and portions of the statute, which I shall not detain the House by reading. He said:
Briefly the effect of these provisions is as follows. Although an attendance allowance is an additional benefit under the National


Insurance Act 1965, any question whether a person satisfies either of the two conditions, to which I will refer as 'the medical conditions', under section 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b) respectively, is for decision not by the insurance officer or the local tribunal with an appeal on fact as well as law to a National Insurance Commissioner ('the statutory authorities') under sections 67 to 70 of the 1965 Act, but by the Board, who have power to delegate any of their functions in respect of a case to one or more medical practitioners (section 5(6) of the 1970 Act) referred to as delegates (section 6(5)). The Board or a delegate have power to review their decisions (section 6(3)). The claimant and the Secretary of State must be notified in writing of a review decision and the reasons for it (regulation 14(2)). The only right of appeal to a Commissioner is, with leave, against a review decision and only on any question of law arising on such a decision.
My second question to the Minister is this: does he consider that it is just for the family of a disabled child to have a decision made by a secret, private discussion at which not only are the family prevented from being present but at which no representation is permitted? [Interruption.] The Minister said something. I will gladly give way.
Let us take the points in turn. It is a secret discussion by which I mean one at which the public, the Press and the people concerned are not entitled to be present. It is a private one, at which the person concerned cannot be present, nor can his representatives. It can affect the entire future of a family, deciding whether they can look after their child at home in many cases or whether he must be put into an institution, probably at a cost to the country four or five times that of looking after him at home.
In addition, there is no right of appeal. Can the Minister conceivably say that it is in accordance with natural justice to have that sort of decision made in that way without a right of appeal? The time has come for justice to be moved out from these private boards and into the light of day.
The Chief Commissioner continued:
Where the disabled person in respect of whom a claim is made is a child under 16 each of the two medical conditions in section 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b) has additional words added to it by the regulations.
He then set out what those are.
I move forward now to paragraph 13 of the decision:
In considering this"—

the review—
it is important to remember that the Commissioner's functions are limited. An attendance allowance being a benefit under the National Insurance Act 1965, the actual award or refusal to award the allowance is made by the statutory authorities; there is a right of appeal against such a decision on any ground to a Commissioner. But the question whether either of the medical conditions is satisfied is for decision by the Board or their delegate, whose decision is binding on the statutory authorities.
The commissioner has no right to interfere. In a case such as the one we are considering, in which there is a conflict of evidence betwen two doctors and no right to cross-examine, that is a travesty of justice.
He continued:
And an appeal against a decision of the Board or its delegate on the medical conditions lies only against a determination on review on any question of law; there is no appeal on the facts. Parliament has entrusted the decision of the medical questions to a single central medical authority, whose delegates for the purposes of determination under section 5(6) must be medical practitioners and must act in accordance with any directions of the Board. Obviously one of the purposes is to secure so far as possible uniformity and fairness of treatment as between the extremely numerous claimants throughout Great Britain. Against this background it would be most unfortunate if the Commissioner, in the guise of deciding questions of law, were in truth substituting his own layman's opinion on the facts or the medical inferences to be drawn from them.
He cannot hear evidence of fact, he cannot hear the doctors, he cannot hear cross-examination of the doctors. The board can, but it does not. It most certainly should.
The Chief Commissioner continued:
This makes it particularly important to recognise both the limits beyond which the Commissioner has no power to act and the tests to be applied in deciding whether a decision of a question is erroneous in point of law.
He then set out the tests, which include the test that the decision was contrary to natural justice.
He next dealt in detail with the evidence as it appeared from the various documents before him, in its utterly unsatisfactory form, and then said, in paragraph 21:
I express no opinion on the question whether the Board or their delegates, who have not clinically examined the disabled person, are entitled to record a finding of primary


fact which is contrary to all the evidence and supported by none.
What is the Minister's comment on that?
In paragraph 25 he said that
Both doctors, however, reported that he could unaided get into and out of bed. One reported that he could get into and out of the bath and the other that he could not. There was therefore a conflict of evidence: on those points they disagreed with each other or with the claimant.
The importance of the claimant's own evidence is apparent if one asks oneself what would have happened if after dark James had been left unsupervised with nobody in the house. If he woke up or half woke up and wanted to use the toilet and got no answer when he shouted, he might well try to get there himself and get stranded out of bed in the dark unable to turn on a light, unable to open the door and unable to get back safely into bed. It is no answer to say that there is no evidence that that had ever happened. If it had not, was not the reason that the supervision had always been provided?
The child had never been left alone since his birth.
In paragraph 30 the Chief Commissioner said:
Having fully considered the matter my conclusion is that the reasons given by the Board are seriously inadequate and do not comply with regulation 14(2). The claimant and Mr. Janner cannot tell from them whether the Board accepted or rejected her evidence in whole or in part nor indeed whether they accepted all the opinions of either and if so which of the two doctors".
What an indictment of a nine-man board presided over by the chairman!
She cannot tell what further evidence she needs to obtain if she wishes to seek a further review. On this ground the decision must he held to be erroneous in point of law and set aside
We now continue with the portion which has so far been ignored but which, after this debate, will be ignored no longer:
If I had taken a different view on this I should have thought it right to raise the question whether this decision and the precedure leading to it comply with the rules of natural justice. In paragraph 9 of Decision CA 8/72 (not reported) I drew attention to the immense difficulty facing the Board in deciding a case of this type without a hearing of any sort on the facts; to which one might add also without any form of oral legal argument.
The Commissioner decided that to submit a person to this sort of tribunal without any form of hearing on the facts and without any oral argument on the law was, in his view, questionable from the standpoint of complying with the rules of natural justice.
What is the Minister's view? Does he consider that it does comply with the rules of natural justice? If he does not, what does he propose to do about it? The only answer we have had so far from either the board or the Minister is that any changes which they propose will be in the forms which people are given.
The Chief Commissioner then criticises the way in which the forms were set out, and this, I understand, has been changed. In paragraph 33 he says:
In the special circumstances of this case I express no opinion on the question by whom and in what manner the claimant's case should be considered afresh, by or on behalf of the Board, who under Section 5(6) have power to delegate their functions to one or more medical practitioners. The claimant and Mr. Janner should, however, be given every opportunity of submitting further evidence.
I have asked for, and been refused, the opportunity to submit oral evidence. In view of this decision, how can the Minister possibly support that? The Chief Commissioner has ruled that my constituent and I should be given every opportunity of submitting further evidence—not the opportunity to submit written evidence, if we see fit and at the claimant's expense for that is what it would be. There is no provision made for the claimant in this respect. We have been refused even a medical examination at public expense. But we are told that we may submit written evidence, if we wish, at the claimant's expense.
Is that "every opportunity"? This matter goes beyond consideration of an individual case. The board will come back to it, and I shall fight the case, however many years it may take before we win it. But what matters here is not this case but every case. The Chief Commissioner has said that this is an example in which the procedure is contrary to natural justice, but the Minister and the board say, "We shall just change the forms". I remind the hon. Gentleman again that the Chief Commissioner said that every opportunity should be given to submit further evidence, but he and the board are refusing to allow it.
There is here not only a manifest refusal to make the changes which should be made, but there is an utterly intolerable situation, and it is in the hands of either the board or the Minister to correct it. According to the Minister's letter which I have already quoted, the initial decision


is for the board. But that applies only to the initial decision. The responsibility lies with the Minister.
I come now to the letters. I have raised many of these questions by correspondence because one hopes to deal with the matter in that way, and one can never count on the good fortune of an opportunity to raise such issues on the Consolidated Fund. I received a reply dated 19th January from the secretary to Attendance Allowance Board:
"Dear Sir, I have, as promised, placed your letter of 18th December to me before the Board. They have directed me to reply to your points in the following terms:
The Board regret that they are unable to accept your application for an oral hearing when the further review comes before them. In this connection they have failed to find in the Chief Commissioner's decision any adverse criticism of their failure to hold an oral hearing in this case".
Good gracious! I refer once again—I cannot put it to the board because I am not allowed to do so, so I do it here—to the statement of the Chief Commissioner that I should be given every opportunity of submitting further evidence—which is refused—and to his further statement questioning whether the procedure, without any sort of hearing on the facts and without any form of oral legal argument, complied with the rules of natural justice.
Is that not a most serious criticism? Yet the letter from the secretary tells me that he has been instructed by the board to say that
they have failed to find…any adverse criticism of their failure to hold an oral hearing".
I do not suppose that the board had read the Chief Commissioner's report, which in itself is a great pity. If the members of the board are so overburdened that they cannot read even a report of this kind, their number should be increased forthwith, and they should be asked at least to read it. Surely, the Minister must accept that that statement in the letter, that the board could find no adverse criticism, was quite unreasonable. The letter continues:
They wish me to point out that they would regard it as quite unfair to the generality of claimants if they were to grant an oral

hearing exceptionally in one case when they are unable to provide such hearings for all applicants for review who so desired.
Has there been any other such case? Has anyone ever asked for it? If others have applied, how many? I should be surprised if, by the pure freak of fate that this family happens to have a Member of Parliament who happens to be a lawyer and who is interested in these matters, there has been no other occasion when the Chief Commissioner has had a lawyer appear before him on behalf of a claimant, when an appeal has been allowed, and it has been referred back. However, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no such case, and I want to know.

Mr. William Wilson: I assure my hon. Friend that there is another Member of Parliament, also a lawyer, who is at this moment in the pipeline hoping to secure an oral hearing.

Mr. Janner: I thank my hon. Friend, and I assure him that the support of another hon. Member tonight gives me great confidence. Up to now, I seem to have faced a totally blank wall, and I trust that, when it is known that this matter is of deep concern to many of us, we shall succeed in getting somewhere. Incidentally, I should add that I know that the issue is not regarded in this House as in any sense one of party politics. There are many hon. Members on both sides, deeply concerned, who feel seriously frustrated in their efforts to help constituents and who regard the treatment of their constituents by the Attendance Allowance Board as quite shocking. There are others in the pipeline who have been good enough to approach me on the matter, and I know of several cases which are coming up.
This will certainly not be the last that the Minister hears of it. There will not be just the Jimmy Martin case. The pipeline is long, and it will not end when some claimants receive two-thirds of the allowance. That is a welcome step, but it is only a step. At present, these people get nothing. We hope that they will get two-thirds, but there is no assurance yet even of that.
The letter continues:
It seems to them that in making statutory provision for the Board and their system of adjudication a choice had first been made. One possibility would have been to set up


medical boards throughout the country to make initial decisions with a right of appeal to various medical appeal tribunals, much as is done in the Industrial Injuries Scheme, with an express right to appear before the boards or tribunals and to make oral representations. If the choice had fallen on this system it would seem that, in view of the limited medical manpower available, it would have been necessary to proceed very much more slowly with the introduction of the allowance, taking on much smaller categories over a much longer period.
I pause there to say that, in my view, where there is so much involved for so many families, we should put more resources into it. I am glad that we have a Supplementary Estimate. There should have been a great deal more.
The secretary refers in his letter to the fact that
the Board and their delegates have dealt with over 170,000 applications for the allowance and 26,000 applications for review since claims were first invited some 18 months ago.
I repeat that the members of the board have my sympathy in this matter. They should have the Minister's help.
The letter goes on:
It is, of course, open to Mrs. Martin or to you yourself to submit, in writing, medical or other evidence.
Very kind! He goes on:
The Board are advised that they have no power to pay for medical evidence produced by a claimant".
The effect of that is. "If you want a consultant on your side, the Martins must pay". Mr. Martin is a lorry driver, of modest means—a tremendously good and kind man but in no position to pay for that, any more than he would have been in a position to pay for his own legal representation had that arisen, which, happily, it did not. The letter continues:
In the particular circumstances of this case, however, they propose to obtain a medical report from a consultant.
So there is to be one for the board, whose procedure and decision has already been severely criticised, but I shall not have the right to cross-examine that consultant or to call another in opposition to his evidence.
Does the Minister regard that as in accordance with natural justice? Or, if the board decides against, are we to go back again to the Chief Commissioner and say yet again that there is a lack of natural justice and that there has been

a refusal to grant elementary rights which his decision said should exist? The secretary continues
I shall, however, be writing to you again about this including particulars of the arrangements to be made for Jimmy to be examined by the consultant.
That is a matter of courtesy, as one would expect. It goes on
The Board are not aware of any undue delay either on their part or on the part of the Department of Health and Social Security.
After all, this has only been going on for 16 months. The boy will be grown up before his case is finished.
Revised versions of the Board's medical report forms came into use in August 1972 and the Board keep the forms under review in the light of comment and experience.
The secretary then says that a copy of the letter has been sent to the Department of Health and Social Security. In other words we have nothing—no early hearing, no right to submit oral evidence, no right to obtain evidence at public expense.
Finally, in a letter to me dated 22nd January the Minister says that he has seen a copy of the letter sent to me by the Secretary of the Attendance Allowance Board in reply to my letter of 18th December. If there are additional parts of the letter which the Minister would wish me to read out I should be glad to do so. I shall read only those parts which I consider to be relevant. He says:
We have, we believe managed to recruit just about enough people to deal with the extension using the sort of system that has been operating over the last 18 months but I feel sure that, if we were obliged to change over to the sort of system of oral hearings used under the Industrial Injuries Scheme, we should simply not be able to find enough suitable people to enable us to proceed with the extension at anything like the rate at which we are aiming—and which we all feel is desirable.
In other words, there will not be enough staff. But if the Government find the money—and I have no doubt that hon. Members on both sides would be pleased to vote money for this purpose in much larger quantities—they will find the people to staff a tribunal or board of this sort. There must be many who would be willing to staff it on a voluntary basis. The Minister says:
I do want to emphasise that even with valiant efforts the Board have had difficulty in getting through the work with the existing system.


I fully accept that. I demand that the system be changed. It is manifestly unjust. He continues:
the Chief Commissioner has, of course, decided that the Board's decision did not comply with the requirement to give reasons, contained in Regulation 14(2) of the Attendance Allowance Regulations, with the result that they are required to give a further decision on review. Subject to this, however, it does not appear to me that it follows from the Chief Commissioner's decision that in this case the Board erred in law in any other respect. If the Board were to decide to maintain the original decision and the Martins were then still dissatisfied it would again be open to them to appeal on a question of law to the National Insurance Commissioner.
I say "Thank you for nothing." That is not the way matters concerning the future of a family and the welfare, not of one disabled child but of 30,000, should be dealt with when they have to go back and forward like a yo-yo every time. That is the evidence. The question now is: what is the Minister proposing to do about it? What answer will he give, if there is one, to the criticisms made by the Chief Commissioner? Is he proposing to change the procedure? If not, why not?
Does he not consider that this is symptomatic of a much wider malaise affecting other tribunals and the court decision? Does he not see in the flood of decisions which have come not only from the board but from others a demand for open, non-secret justice? Does he not see that what applies here applies to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board with its lack of right of appeal? Does he not see that justice should be open and that the people should have the right to appear and to argue their case whether it is before the Attendance Allowance Board or whether it is someone who is involved willy-nilly, by statements made by witnesses or by lawyers in a bankruptcy hearing?
Does the Minister not feel that the entire system needs review? Is he not prepared to give some hope that this is being done? Does he not feel that there has been a mistake which would not have been made had there been proper legal arguments before the people concerned? There has been no representation provided by legal aid on behalf of the people most intimately concerned. There has been at last, after months of battling, a decision overruling the repeated

refusals of the Attendance Allowance Board to grant an allowance to this embattled family and there have been criticisms by the commissioner which have not been answered. The Commissioner has required that every facility and every right should be given to Mrs. Martin and to me on her behalf to present further evidence. None of these requirements has been complied with. What possible answer can the Minister give to that?

7.35 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful for this opportunity to speak about the Attendance Allowance Board and the procedures it adopts. I profoundly regret the extravagant language that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) has felt it appropriate to use, the unfairness of his language about the Attendance Allowance Board and the way in which he has picked out certain parts of the Chief Commissioner's judgment and distorted them.

Mr. Greville Janner: That is a most unfortunate accusation——

Mr. Dean: I do not wish to give way. The hon. and learned Member has spoken. Perhaps he will now allow me to deal with the points he has raised.
The new allowance started just over a year ago, and three things stand out clearly from experience. The first is the value of the allowance in helping disabled people who need a lot of attention and care day and night, and who need this attention and care from their own families, to provide it. Second is the need to extend the allowance as quickly as possible to cover those whose need for attention is great although not as great as to meet the stringent test deliberately set to get the allowance to those in most urgent need. Third is the enthusiasm and dedication of the board and its staff, both medical and lay, who have got this new allowance to so many people so quickly.
The allowance is now at the rate of £5·40 tax free and non-means tested, and is being paid to more than 82,000 people. The amount being paid out is at the rate of £23 million a year. By the end of 1974 the figure will have increased to £70 million a year. The attendance allowance is different from the other social service


benefits, and its procedures and adjudication are designed to fit the requirements and to be able very quickly to set the standards to be applied. It was, therefore, decided that responsibility should lie with a new central body.
The Attendance Allowance Board consists in the main of experienced medical practitioners. That body clearly could not cope with all the claims expected. The maximum membership is 10, and nine have been appointed, including the chairman. It has been empowered to delegate its functions to medical practitioners in individual cases. The board having been set up, it was not possible to think in terms of a higher medical appeal body, and in place of the more usual right of appeal there has been right from the start a system of reviews. This review system is not uncommon in the rest of national insurance, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, but it is much wider here than the usual right of review. The usual right of review is limited to ignorance of a material act, a mistake as to a material fact, or a relevant change of circumstances.
People who are dissatisfied with a decision about the attendance allowance may have a review on any ground within a period of three months. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows from his own experience in this and in other cases on which we have corresponded, this review introduces an element of flexibility—the possibility of going over the case again—such as does not exist in the normal adjudication procedure which applies to the national insurance scheme, family allowance arrangements, and the like. The hon. and learned Gentleman has given nothing like enough credit to the flexibility provided in the review procedure.
If there were to be reasonably even standards of adjudication in what, after all, is a new allowance, a pioneering allowance, it seemed clear that responsibility for making decisions should be limited to a relatively small number of doctors. For information about a disabled person they need to seek reports from other doctors. In fact, the co-operation of all 23,000 general practitioners in Britain was sought in order to get the scheme launched. It is the family doctor

who is first asked to visit and to complete the report form. The delegate of the board or the board itself decides on the basis of the information in his report and any other information given by the claimant. In order to complete an adequate form, the doctor has to see the disabled person and ask questions about his needs, and it is often necessary for these questions to be put to whomsoever is providing the care; certainly that is true in the instance of children.
If the claimant is dissatisfied with the first decision, he may ask for a review. A different doctor is asked to visit and complete a report. From the start, these reports have included a statement made by the claimant to the doctor and signed by him. These statements are now also included in initial reports.
Equally, in order to complete the report the doctor needs to question the disabled person and those looking after him. Thus, following a review, the disabled person—or his attendants—has had the opportunity to express his needs and to discuss them with at least two doctors, in most cases in his own home. There is nothing remotely impersonal about this, and to describe this careful procedure as being contrary to natural justice and secret is a distortion of the way in which the procedure in fact works.
Furthermore if people are dissatisfied with the initial decision they are told that they may present evidence from other people if they are thinking of applying for a review. If the board or delegated medical practitioner dealing with the review is unable to decide in the claimant's favour, copies of all the documents are sent to him to enable him to comment. This is the way in which the system has worked effectively and fairly over the initial stages.
In the first 18 months of the scheme some 160,000 claims have been dealt with and some 25,000 applications have been reviewed. In defending the procedures of the board and the work it has been able to do in a comparatively short time I am not for a moment suggesting that the system cannot be improved or that we cannot all learn from experience. Indeed, we certainly can, and we are doing so. Improvements have already been made in the light of experience, including comments received. Notices of


rejection have been altered; leaflets have been re-drafted; and medical report forms redesigned and expanded. Procedures are being kept under review all the time, and particular attention is now being paid to the implications of the Chief Commissioner's comments that when documents are sent out claimants should be given an idea of the way in which the decision, as currently conceived, is going. In other words, there is an intention, being implemented in practice, to learn from experience and to improve procedures in the light of that experience.
The hon. and learned Gentleman spent a good deal of time referring to what he regarded as the need for oral hearings. I hope that what I have already said has clearly conveyed that within this procedure there are many opportunities at all stages for the views of all who are interested and all who are knowledgeable to be fully heard, to be fully recorded and to be studied even in the homes of the claimants by at least two qualified doctors in those instances where there is a review. That is a valuable safeguard in the interests of natural justice for those concerned.
With his legal training and, no doubt, his familiarity with the procedures of the courts, the hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned about oral hearings. The board is in no position to grant oral hearings. The original concept of quickly getting reasonably even standards of decision-making by a relatively small cadre of doctors working under the direction of the board would be lost. This is immensely important. One of the criticisms of the scheme to begin with was that there were uneven standards over the country. If we are to avoid having uneven standards and injustice in that way, it is important, particularly in early days, to have at least some decisions concentrated so that we may iron out the difficulties that would otherwise arise.
Equally, the extra medical manpower that would be needed is not available. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was sure that Parliament would provide more money so that his suggested new procedures could be put into operation. Surely he realises that the chief bottlenecks in speeding up procedures and in getting the allowance to those entitled to it under the extension is the

shortage of medical manpower which is required not only for the attendance allowance board but for all other medical tasks.
It is no answer for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that all we have to do is to provide more money and we shall suddenly have vast numbers of doctors, who are now unemployed, or tucked away somewhere, longing to come forward to do this job. It is nothing like as easy as he has made out. We have scoured the country to find more doctors. We have been successful in recruiting some, but there are distinct limits to the numbers who may be made available. When they have been made available, they have had to become familiar with the processes involved in order that the right decisions may be made.
Claims for the new lower rate of allowance of £3·60 are now being taken. This will place an even greater strain on the manpower resources available, particularly the medical manpower. It is expected that anything up to 500,000 claims may be received and that another 250,000 people will be receiving an allowance at the end of the day. The board has had difficulty enough getting through its work over the last 18 months and the task will be even greater in the next two years. To move away from the present system of adjudication to a system of oral hearings would be unfortunate for thousands of disabled people. It would mean that they would have to wait longer for an allowance than under the present system. While we have probably 250,000 people waiting for the allowance, the first priority must be the maximum speed consistent with fair and efficient administration.

Mr. Greville Janner: Fair.

Mr. Dean: Consistent with fair and efficient administration.
Against that general background, I turn to some of the detailed points which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned with regard to the Chief Commissioner's decision. I have explained already that this is an important decision which is being considered carefully by the Attendance Allowance Board, which has primary responsibility in these matters for


its procedures, and it is also being considered by the Government. I have mentioned the changes which have been made already as a result of the suggestions which there were there, but, in view of the sum of the comments of the hon. and learned Gentleman, it is important to spend a few moments dealing with what that decision actually said.
Before doing so, let me deal with two specific points put to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman. First, in the case in which he is interested the board decided on the evidence before it, copies of which were sent to the hon. and learned Gentleman and to Mrs. Martin, and on nothing else. I am assured that there was no legal submission or argument, secret or otherwise. The board decided solely on the evidence.
The sole ground on which the Chief Commissioner set aside the decision of the board was that the reason given for its decision was seriously inadequate and did not comply with Regulation 14(2) of the National Insurance (Attendance Allowance) Regulations 1971.
In paragraph 22 of his decision, the Chief Commissioner said that he was not prepared to hold the board's decision to be erroneous in point of law on the ground that there was no evidence to support it.
In paragraph 21 the Chief Commissioner referred to the board or its delegates drawing on their expert experience being entitled not merely to supplement but even to contradict any evidence of opinions before them.
The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted paragraph 31, and went on to say that the Chief Commissioner said that the procedure was contrary to natural justice——

Mr. Greville Janner: With respect, in view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman has referred quite unfairly to distortion because I did not read the report from beginning to end, it is fair to say that I made it plain many times that what the Chief Commissioner said was that in any event he would have questioned whether this was not contrary to the rules of natural justice. This is what he said.

Mr. Dean: It was the hon. and learned Gentleman himself who said that it was

contrary to natural justice. As he has said, the Chief Commissioner did not. In paragraph 31 he said that if he had taken a different view on the adequacy of the reasons he would have thought it right to raise the question whether the decision and the procedure leading to it complied with the rules of natural justice.
Folic-wing a reference to oral hearings, the Chief Commissioner referred to leaflet NI.I 82, which contains the paragraph:
Once the claim has been made there is nothing more to do. The claim will be acknowledged, and the Department will arrange for any necessary medical examination to be carried out.
The Chief Commissioner referred to this helpful approach as placing a heavy responsibility on the Department or on the board. The leaflets relating to adults have been reprinted and reference to there being nothing more to do has been taken out. The paragraph now reads:
Once the claim has been made the Department will acknowledge it and will arrange for a medical examination to be carried out, usually by the disabled person's own doctor.
There was also a reference to the need to obtain information in medical reports relevant to the need for continual supervision to avoid substantial danger. The medical report forms were, in fact, revised by the Attendance Allowance Board, and new forms came into use in August 1972. There are supplementary report forms to be completed in cases of mental abnormality where supervision to avoid the danger is especially relevant.
The Chief Commissioner went on to say that in sending documents out for comment there was a good deal to be said for the contention that such a letter accompanying documents ought to tell the claimant the view which the board had provisionally formed. Careful consideration was being given to the possibility of applicants for review generally being told of the provisional view formed by the board or a delegated medical practitioner when documents were sent out to the applicant for comment. So I think that it is clear not only that is this judgment being considered seriously both by the Government and by the Attendance Allowance Board, as it should be, but that action has been taken already on some of the proposals contained in it.
The hon. and learned Gentleman then came back to the case of Jimmy Martin.


I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman again, as the board has already done, that it will be very glad to consider any medical or other evidence submitted to it in writing. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the board itself proposes to seek a medical report from a consultant, and he will be informed of further details of the procedures which are involved——

Mr. Greville Janner: May I have the hon. Gentleman's assurance that I shall be supplied with a copy of the consultant's report so as to put in evidence in reply, if required?

Mr. Dean: I think that I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that in the event of the review procedures going into operation once more he will again receive all the evidence and all the appropriate documents made available in cases of this kind. Certainly Mrs. Martin will. I wish to check that because I do not want to mislead the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am almost certain that this will be an appropriate document for inclusion. However, to be absolutely right perhaps I might correspond with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and clear up that point.
In view of the work which the hon. and learned Gentleman has done on this case and on others I hone that as a result of this debate I have been able to assure the House that the Attendance Allowance Board—a new board starting with a new allowance—has been able to get into operation a very large number of badly needed allowances to hard-pressed homes in a comparatively short period of time, that there is within its procedures ample opportunity for review, that there is ample opportunity for personal contact and, therefore, for oral hearings in the home, which is the natural place where they can take place most freely and most readily, and that these are all achieved under the existing arrangements.
I hope that I have also been able to assure the House that we realise fully that the procedures are not perfect. They are being improved all the time, and we shall give careful consideration to the points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
I conclude by confirming that the hon. and learned Gentleman will receive the evidence seen by the board, including the consultant's report.

Mr. Janner: Is that an assurance that I shall receive the evidence so that in accordance with the Commissioner's decision I may present further evidence in the light of it? It is no good providing it afterwards.

Mr. Dean: I think that I can assure the hon. and learned Member that that will be so. But, again, we are on a fairly detailed point and I want to be satisfied that I am giving him the correct information. If what I have just said is incorrect I shall see that it is amended.

Mr. Janner: I shall raise it again.

Orders of the Day — RATE SUPPORT GRANT

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: I wish to refer to the supplementary provision for rate support grant to local revenues, Class VI, Vote 18, in the Supplementary Estimates.
These grants involve vast amounts of money. I accept immediately that the Government have made a considerable increase in their grants to local authorities. My theme is that they are not enough to enable local authorities to do all the jobs required of them and placed upon them by the Government and this House and to keep to the target of rate increases that the Government would like.
The order referred to was made on 30th November and was one of two orders, the Rate Support Grant Order, for 1973–74, and the Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order, for 1972–73. They were debated for only three hours, which was a quite inadequate time. I do not apologise for having taken the opportunity since then to raise the matter on a number of occasions.
In the debate on the orders we were concerned more about the 1973–74 proposals, and no mention was made of any of the other matters in the orders. One of the difficulties in the debate on 20th December was lack of information. There was not enough information in the orders or in the Secretary of State's report on


either of them. A number of matters have arisen since then. We did not know what would be the effect of the revaluation of rateable values. We were guessing. Lists were to be published two days later. The analysis of those lists arrived in town halls on 26th January. Rate rebate orders were discussed in the House only last night. I hope that whatever system is adopted when local government finance is reorganised, the importance of parliamentary discussion each year on any grants from Government to local authorities will be considered. I hope also that within the Bill on local government finance we shall take that into consideration and see how much information the House can be given. Hon. Members often do not take part in these discussions because the relevant statistics seem to be presented in such a way as to frighten them away.
One of the problems next year is that councils will have to find the money for this year's inflation, which has probably been the greatest ever in peacetime. They must do that before even starting to consider the extra costs they must bear next year. The Government have recognised this to some extent by increasing the grant for 1972–73 by about 9 per cent. I want to deal later with the 9 per cent. itself. However, what should be realised is that a proportional share of the increase received from the Government has to be borne by local authorities. So out of next year's rates—if the Government's figures are right—they will have to pay 9 per cent. more than what they estimated for this year, and then they will have to consider next year's spending.
The City Council of Liverpool estimates that the cost of inflation during this year is £7 million. That means approximately a 28p rate increase. That is before the city even starts to consider what it should do next year. I imagine that about half of that amount will be met for Liverpool by grant increases. Even so, it leaves that city with a 15p increase to pay this year's debts out of next year's rates.
I do not think that this was realised by the Prime Minister and his advisers when he replied to the five cities after they had asked to meet him. He probably thought that they were talking about next year rather than this year. He has now realised this, and that is one

of the reasons why he has decided to meet representatives of the five cities on 9th February. I trust that that meeting will mean that some additional help is forthcoming from the Government. I do not suggest for one moment that these five cities are the only local authorities with worries. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark), who represents a constituency with a very large rural area, will also have something to say about this if he catches Mr Speaker's eye.
Another factor in inflating the costs for the current year is the additional tasks given to local authorities during the year, such as contributions to clearance of derelict areas and to improvements generally. Their efforts during the year under consideration to reduce unemployment have cost them money, and again the Government have helped; but the councils have had to find a share.
Is 9 per cent. enough? The period that was considered was from November 1971 to November 1972. In appendix 1 to his report, the Secretary of State showed us that the changes in prices cost about that much, and he gives a detailed list of those increases taken into consideration. Our difficulty is that the House was not given the original figures of what teachers' pay would cost, and so on, so we cannot make an assessment of what the percentage increase is. Perhaps the Minister will tell us something of the various percentage increases required by appendix 1 of the Secretary of State's report.
On 18th January the Association of Municipal Corporations issued a statement referring to wage rates and earnings and the Government's statement about them. I should like to quote from the association's statement about them. It said:
The problem which has been facing those in local government responsible for preparing their rate estimates for the forthcoming year, 1973–74, is that the operation is carried out in the background of an inflation which the Government describes in paragraph 24 of the White Paper in relation to wage rates and earnings as running at 15 per cent.-16 per cent.
We have repeatedly heard the argument from the Government that prices have been rising at about 8 per cent. and that wages have been rising by about 15 per cent. or 16 per cent. But at least half of local authority spending is on pay, and


that ought to be considered. Local authorities spend their money partly on goods, partly on interest—about 25 per cent. on the whole—and about 50 per cent. on wages. This means that there is a considerable increase above the price increases that must be met. Local authorities have also had to meet increased, national insurance contributions and, because of this, a great deal of money has gone to the Government. With all these pay increases, about one-third goes to the Government in income tax, whereas it is paid out by local authorities. In its statement the association goes on to say that
local authorities are faced with the cost of inflation up to November 1972 in that year alone at the rate of £410 million of which local authorities would have to find 42 per cent., namely, £172 million. Thus even though assisted by the Government's raising of their proportion of the rate support grant to 60 per cent. instead of 58 per cent., there remains a heavy burden for local authorities".
This is a particularly heavy burden with some local authorities, because these figures are averages and some authorities do not do as well in grants proportionately, as do others. The association also mentions the cost of land purchases, which has increased greatly in the last year, and it says:
It is to he recognised that some local authorities will have estimated for a degree of inflation when they made their rates early in 1972 but there is no reason to think that those who did so will have allowed for more than 5 per cent. (or a figure of that order) and it is clear that the balances in the hands of the urban authorities, faced with very heavy costs in recent years, are extremely limited.
I have mentioned the question of balances. On the whole, the large cities do not keep great rate balances. They are usually too hard pressed to do so, and their rate increases are usually so phenomenal that they dare not start saving as well. I think it is true that counties and county districts—and urban districts particularly—tend to overestimate their needs a little and finish with some reserves. I think it is true that district treasurers and finance chairmen come to an understanding about the estimate of the 1p rate product, and that is usually below the final figure. They also tend to keep large working balances. In many cases they have to, because a disaster hitting a small council can present heavy costs suddenly and they have to look out for that. Changes in political

control, too, often mean that balances are spent before an election. That has happened, I think, on a number of occasions. On the whole, big cities do not allow for inflation. They do not put up rates because their rate increases are pretty high in any case.
Another factor is costs, and interest costs for buildings. Housing does not affect the support grant, but an example of costs of building during the past year is evidenced by one of the urban districts in my constituency. Denton Urban District Council, which was building a small estate of houses to rehouse people moved for a motorway, found the yardstick cost was £226,000 at the end of the 1971. The lowest tender the council got was £291,000 in 1972, an increase of 29 per cent. The Government, through their regional offices, approved that increase. Increases like that are not of 9 per cent. A great deal of building for housing is done by local authorities. In the case I have mentioned the land was not included in the cost, for the council already owned the land. Yesterday Manchester and Salford received a rate precept from the police force and there was an increase of 19 per cent.
My view is that the Government grant—both the revised figure for 1972–73 and the new figure for 1973–74—will not permit local authorities to keep to the average of 5 per cent. for which the Government are asking. The averages hide huge problems for the big cities and for many of the industrial towns. If cuts take place as a result of monitoring by the Department of the Environment, where will they come? Are the Government going to tell these areas what cuts they should make? Usually, when there are sudden cuts they come too late to do anything about pay, and it is usually books, repairs, school equipment, and so on which bear them. If the cuts have to be substantial these means are not enough, and redundancies will have to be faced.
The Government are beginning to recognise this problem. We had the first Press release on the rate support grant in a blaze of glory. I think the Government are realising that the situation for local authorities is not all that rosy. The Prime Minister is meeting representatives of the cities next week and I have no doubt that he will meet representatives of other


authorities as well. There are others besides the cities which have great difficulty because of the increases this year. This is not a political matter. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which has a Conservative majority, faces the same problem and is talking in terms of 20 per cent. I hope that the Prime Minister will listen and that all the Departments will act.
Before meeting them the Prime Minister has gone to meet the President of the United States. There have been a number of similarities in the approaches which the Prime Minister and the President have made to local authorities in recent months. I trust that in his discussions with the cities and in the action which the Government take in the Budget that similarity will end.
The Guardian today, referring to the United States budget, said that
Among the programmes to be phased out are important unemployment, housing, urban renewal, and education projects. The future looks bleak for the poor people the Great Society programmes were designed to help. The President's message can only increase the despair that already permeates the decaying inner cities of America. … There are to be tax deductions for parents sending children to private schools and there is to be more money for the SST, the supersonic plane which was scrapped by Congress. Senator Mansfield summed it up well when he said, 'The people will get the idea that they are forgotten.'
The people of our inner cities must not be forgotten. The Government can help and they must help.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I am grateful for another opportunity to discuss particular aspects of the rating problem facing local authorities today.
We are grateful to my hon Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) for the opportunity recently of an Adjournment debate on the problems of the cities, and tonight we are dealing, as he says, with the rate support grant. Only yesterday we were talking about the rate rebate order before the House. There has been talk in this debate about the effect of revaluation. I hope that the Minister who is to reply tonight will take the little more time which is at his disposal than when he dealt with the affairs of the big cities and that he will give us a full exposition of the Government's position.
I personally welcome the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), to the Government Front Bench tonight because his hands are clean on the assassination of Bristol, an assassination which has taken place under local government reorganisation. I am grateful to him for that.
The rather narrow terms of reference of this rate support grant will, nevertheless, give us an opportunity to deal with a particular aspect of the matter and the effect of inflation. In the Supplementary Estimate, Class VI, Vote 18, on page 65 of the Supply Estimates, there is reference to changes in the level of prices, costs and remunerations. This, of course, is basically talking about inflation.
In discussion with officials of the House about the rules of order in discussing the increased provision and the level of the increases and whether it was an increase in order of magnitude or not, it was pointed out that £196 million on the present provision of £2,333,000,000 is an 8½ per cent. increase, but in reality it is larger than that because the bulk of the amount referred to on page 65 is taken up by the needs element. The second item deals with the resources element. This is the money supplied per head for authorities with below-average resources. This is subject to change, because next year, for the first time, so the Department has informed Bristol, we shall get grant under this heading. Then there is the domestic element to offset the cost of reductions by a prescribed amount. Hon. Members will see that there is no change there.
So, although we talk about an increase in this expenditure, the sum of £465,662,000 does not change. The element which has changed is increased by £196 million, on the lesser figure of £1,869,705,000. There is an increase of 10½ per cent. So the increase here is larger than it looks at first sight, if we remove the two items which are not changing. The bulk is taken up with the needs element, which, according to the original Estimates, is arrived at on the basis of population and other objective factors. In Bristol the units for population and education account for approximately 85 per cent. of what we receive. As these are declining factors, much more detail should have been given in this


section on page 65. The heading includes the words "additional detail" but there is precious little.
There is no indication that the needs element is subject to change. Some areas with a declining population and a reducing number of education units are considerably worse off. There is no flexibility. The theoretical concept behind the formula takes no account of change. Will the Minister tell us broadly to which type of authority the bulk of the 10½ per cent. increase will go and which services are claiming the lion's share of the increase. The 10½ per cent., taken as a national average of the increase in costs, takes no account of the wide variations which exist. A tremendous range of variations must be concealed in this figure, and it would be helpful if the Minister would tell us more about the variations.
In considering prices and remuneration we are really talking about inflation. Inflation hits local authorities particularly hard because municipal services are labour-intensive. One-third of Bristol's increase is accounted for by pay awards. How does Bristol's figure compare with that of other authorities? Charges on the city's loan debt, the cost of services, repairs, maintenance and so on have to be taken into account.
In talking about costs, do we mean general cost increases, or is there a concealed element which reflects the impact of the new services provided by local authorities as a result of legislation? Legislation on the school leaving age and the Housing Finance Act have imposed a greater burden on local authorities. What proportion of the increase can be allocated to the new services that are being provided. This information would be useful to local authorities throughout the country in tackling the substantial estimates that face them.
Page 137 of the original Estimates contains a list of items such as "Education", "School milk and meals" and "Libraries, museums and art galleries". Over the years that list has hardly changed. I know that the Minister is extremely concerned with environmental and traffic problems, and he knows that in large urban areas like Manchester and Bristol the environmental problems are becoming extremely grave. What extra provision is made within this £196 million to enable

local authorities to cope with the sudden increase in interest in and determination to tackle this problem? The system by which the rate support grants are calculated does not give sufficient prominence to environmental problems. Population and education unit factors have become outdated.
Will the Minister say what is Bristol's share in the increase? Bristol's share of the national grant has fallen from 0·819 per cent. in 1967 to 0·713 per cent. in 1973. Will the supplementary figure now before the House have any effect upon this decline in Bristol's share of national resources?
Will the Minister explain how the Supplementary Estimates will affect the amount of local authority expenditure met from the rate support grant? My hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said that the national average had gone up from 54 per cent. in 1967 to 60 per cent. in 1973. Again, that is an average figure, just as the 10½ per cent. increase is an average figure, and it conceals wide variations. It would be helpful if the Minister would make available a breakdown of the individual areas and different types of authority. The average amount of rate support grant which Bristol has received over the years has remained approximately constant at 43 per cent. It is so substantially below the national average that I am sure the Minister will realise the serious position——

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I take it that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that everybody should be above the national average? I hope he accepts that some cities will have to be below the average if there is to be an average.

Mr. Cocks: I am most grateful to the Minister for making my point more clearly than I should have done. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. I have in the past writhed in agony on seeing an advertisement showing a class of school-children in a dental laboratory and a meter swinging across their teeth checking them for resistance to dental decay. A shocked voice is saying that the group of children had been tested and it was found that their teeth had only average resistance to decay.I have always


thought it complete nonsense to gull the public with that sort of point because by taking a normal group one will get an average result. However, I take the Minister's point that the average is made up of different components.
The situation which faces local authorities has changed in the last year or so in order of magnitude. They now face a different and new situation. The presentation of a Supplementary Estimate in the House in this form is not helpful to those who are increasingly concerned with these problems. Averages are made up of diverse matters, and it is impossible to generalise about particular areas from average figures. The Minister should make available more detailed Estimates so that we are in a better position to see the extent of the problem. I hope that the Prime Minister will appreciate the problem facing large urban areas. If more detail is not made available, and if there is not more discussion of these topics, the local authorities will face the appalling decision of choosing between large increases in rates and the slashing of services.
All the Government talk about monitoring rate increases will be against the background of local authorities having to choose between maintaining existing services and running down services to elderly people, the handicapped, provision for education and all the rest. This is an appalling dilemma. However good the Estimates have been in the past, they are quite inadequate in the present situation.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I welcome this opportunity of being able to support the case which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) in regard to the rate support grant, the details of which are to be found on page 65 of the Civil Estimates for 1972–73. The provisions in that paragraph are inadequate to meet the needs of local authorities. There is a real and growing anxiety in provincial cities and among ratepayers generally at the increasing financial burdens which they are now being obliged to shoulder.
The year 1973 will be an onerous one for local authorities. We need only to catalogue some of the financial problems which local authorities will have to face in the year ahead. They will face increases in the salaries and wages of local authority staff. They will be burdened with value added tax. They will face an increasing financial burden arising from increasing precepts from public transport authorities, police authorities and many others. I am mindful that it was recently announced that the cost of policing in the Manchester and Salford area rose by 18·9 per cent., to £10 million. Turning to page 65 of the Estimates, simple arithmetic tells us that they provide for less than a 9 per cent. increase in rate support.
A further burden will fall upon local authorities in the coming year flowing from local government reorganisation. For example, in 1974 Failsworth Urban District Council, in my constituency, will merge with Oldham Borough Council. Failsworth, which is greatly concerned with the interest of the community, like so many other authorities, is going ahead with projects which it hopes to complete before it merges with the larger metropolitan authority. I instance Failsworth because I have experience of that authority. However, what is happening there is reflected equally in many other parts of the country.
I have heard it suggested that the Government are to monitor rate increases. Rumour has it that the Government have in mind that if the rate increases proposed to be levied by local authorities exceed a certain percentage the authorities will be obliged to inform the Government of their proposals in that regard and must wait 10 days for the Government to comment on the size of the increase envisaged. Perhaps the Minister will give us his thinking on that rumour which is circulating among local authorities.
When we had the opportunity of debating this issue on the Rate Support Grant Order 1972, I noted that the Minister for Local Government and Development said:
The personal social services are growing fast and need to continue to grow."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December 1972; Vol. 848, c. 1438.]
I support that view. However, it is very little use Ministers making that kind of


comment in this Chamber if they do not use their influence to make available the increased rate support grant to enable local authorities to enlarge the personal social services which we all wish to see grow.
There is an increasing amount of legislation which obliges local authorities to carry the financial burden of providing services for the communities that they serve. My hon. Friends and I were delighted that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act reached the Statute Book. That legislation is by no means mandatory on local authorities. It is permissive legislation. But it is not good enough for the Government to encourage local authorities to provide and implement the services set out in that Act and similar Acts while at the same time keeping the rate support grant to the level envisaged in the Estimates. This is a major problem, which is giving rise to real concern in the population at large.
I hope that in considering the level of the rate support grant the Government will bear in mind the regressive features of rates levied by local authorities. Apart from the rate rebate scheme, it should be remembered that many people are burdened with living in homes which attract high rateable values. The Minister will be aware that the regressive nature of rates makes no provision for or takes no account of the ability of the owner of a house to pay the rates levied upon it.
I hope that the Minister recognises the importance of and the need for prompt Government action on this growing problem.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I refer to Supplementary Estimate 1972–73, Class VI, 18 dealing with the rate support grant to local authorities in mentioning briefly the additional relevant expenditure now required by the Sheffield City Council arising from changes in the level of prices, costs, wages and salaries since the 1972 order was made.
Sheffield's additional needs arise primarily from two sources. First is the ever-mounting cost of inflation, about which my hon. Friends have spoken so convincingly, which is adding to the financial means of Sheffield as well as Manchester. Is the Minister aware that

Sheffield faces an increase in costs of the region of 20 per cent.?
It is easy to understand why the great industrial cities of Manchester, Bristol and now Sheffield——

Mr. Julius Silverman: And Birmingham.

Mr. Duffy: Yes, Birmingham, and Newcastle. They face a great financial crisis such as they have never faced before. I did not mention Liverpool because Liverpool took the initiative some weeks ago. It is anxious to meet again in the presence of the Prime Minister. The problems of the great cities do not arise merely from inflation. As from 1st April rates will be demanded on a new basis laid down by the Government in the revaluation of individual properties. Generally speaking, and contrary to belief in some quarters, that will have a marked effect on the country as a whole.
However, in the great cities that I have just mentioned the circumstances are quite different. It is expected, for example, in Liverpool that nearly all domestic ratepayers could pay a substantially increased rate charge next year. Whereas domestic rate bills will mainly go up, industry—and much of my constituency is occupied and dominated by industry—will pay on average 25 per cent. less because industrial rateable values have risen less than average. Thus it seems inevitable that domestic ratepayers will subsidise industry unless the Government takes action.
In the event there is to be in Sheffield a rate freeze. That has been made possible for three reasons: first, because of a pruning of the budget for 1973–74 of approximately £3 million; secondly, because of an increase in the Government rate support grant in the region of £3½ million, and I shall look to the Minister to confirm that; thirdly, because of an unexpected windfall, which the Sheffield City Council did not seek but which my hon. Friends want me to mention, which arises from the Prime Minister's wage freeze. It has meant that £300,000 could be taken out of a fund set aside for anticipated wage increases, thus leaving £1 million to meet the £1 plus 4 per cent. formula. Therefore, the present crisis in Sheffield is being relieved to some extent by wage earners—manual employees. Of course, much greater relief will come from budget cuts.
That raises the obvious question of how cuts in the region of, for example, 5 per cent. in response to the Government's request can be inflicted on the affairs of a city like Sheffield and yet not do grave harm to the quality of life. How can such cuts be undertaken without affecting the city's desire to maintain the momentum of expansion in recent years?
The Minister may say that some expansion will take place. But will he bear in mind my concern that cuts should not be absolute in at least three quarters because, though I expect that the Government will have regard for all the major spending heads to which my hon. Friend referred, there may be some that are so obvious as to be deemed to be not so important. However, they may almost approach urgency.
The first is the need to ensure that the transitional period covering local government reorganisation is not adversely affected by lack of funds. The second may not have received much attention in most parts of the country but it is of growing importance in the great industrial cities, especially in areas like mine. I have already ventilated this matter in the House. I raised it in a Question which I put to the Under-Secretary's Department last year, and received a sympathetic response. I refer to the community industry project which is already being practised in South Yorkshire. I urged the Secretary of State last year that it be given wider application in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, especially in my constituency. For the benefit of hon. Members who may not be familiar with the project's purpose, I wish briefly to explain that it gives employment to jobless youngsters by sending teams to clear up waste areas, to decorate and restore older property, and to help old-age pensioners.
The Minister, who knows South Yorkshire, realises the need for such projects. Moreover, I know that he is acquainted with my constituency and that he is sympathetic to its needs; he is well aware of its acute environmental problems. If there are greater problems in other areas, I should not care to visit those areas. But the Minister does visit them, and he is, therefore, well aware of the prime environmental needs.
I am afraid that any cuts made in the budget of the Sheffield City Council will be visited mainly on the east end. I do not suppose that I shall get any thanks in Sheffield this weekend for having said that. But the east ends of cities usually suffer, and I am concerned that it should not happen in Sheffield.
I am very modest in my request to the Minister. I ask him to bear my concern in mind. I have specified only three matters, but there are other elements in the matter of environmental improvement, notably pollution, of which the Minister is aware as a result of his visit to my area and South Yorkshire generally.
I wish to ask the Minister whether he was in attendance with the Prime Minister when the right hon. Gentleman addressed the Association of Municipal Corporations on 13th December last year. If he was, he may recall that the Prime Minister, in a very fine speech, expressed confidence that in future the community will look to local authorities to provide an even more extensive range of services. Will the Minister bear in mind that it is precisely this kind of expansion which all the great city authorities that are now anxious to meet him and look forward to meeting him on 9th February, especially the Sheffield City Council, fear they will be obliged to slash in the coming year?

8.50 p.m.

Mr. J. R. Kinsey: It is very strange that when the Government's rate support grant is this year the highest we have had we should be getting this attack on the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member at such an early stage, but would he not also accept that inflation has equally been at a higher level than ever before, involving local authorities in an extra £410 million?

Mr. Kinsey: That has been taken into account throughout the whole consideration of the support grant which we now have before us in the Supplementary Estimates. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is surprised that the attack should be coming in this direction, but if he looks around him he will see that it comes from representatives of the cities.
The cities are affected in one or two ways. In most instances these days they have Socialist councils. If a Socialist Government had given this amount and local councils had been Conservative controlled the attacks from the other side would have been on the councils and not so much on the Government. A statement in the Birmingham Post says that the rate support grant is enabling Staffordshire to do just what the Government intended should be done, which is to keep the rate at level pegging in the county. If, with all the inflationary elements that hon. Gentlemen have spoken about, Staffordshire can do it, why cannot the cities do so as well? That is where the crux of the whole argument with the Government lies, and not so much with the support grant.
The whole point is that the Socialists are getting away with it in the local councils because of the distortion caused by putting off revaluation for 10 years. In those years that postponement has been taking away the ratepayers' feelings against those Socialist councils. In Birmingham the amount of the 30 per cent. increase directly attributable to the city council is 16 per cent. If we had the support grant going in that direction it would be very useful indeed because it would bring that 16 per cent. down considerably but, at the same time, we would then have the local authorities looking at that 16 per cent., as they will have to do in any case, in order to make economies to reduce that percentage still further.
The point we cannot get over is the distortion caused by revaluation. In effect, the Minister is shielding Socialist local councils from the wrath of the ratepayers, and we should look at it from that point of view and take these matters into consideration. I ask my hon. Friend to direct his attention to this side of the matter.
We in Birmingham would feel much better if the Minister could protect us from the distortion caused by revaluation and the actions of Socialist local councils in bringing in extra services such as free contraception and going back to direct labour. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Yes, it is all this that is causing the 16 per cent. distortion in Birmingham. We seek the Minister's help on the inflationary

side. The really important thing that we face in Birmingham is revaluation, not the support grant.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I regret the political tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey). The major factor in the rate increase in Birmingham is revaluation. The hon. Gentleman says that the Socialists are getting away with it, but the fact is that the revaluation was embarked upon by his Government. They need not have proceeded with it, but they did so without having regard to the effect that it would have in large cities such as Birmingham.
We have been faced with inflation for years. There is nothing new about it, except perhaps the scale on which we have experienced it during the last two years. The ratepayer is accustomed to his rate bill going up by a steady amount each year. There is nothing new about that. At the hustings for local elections one side attacks the other over the level of rates, but when one examines the rate demand and the commitment to expenditure by the council concerned one finds that the amount of money that could he saved is peanuts.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the provision of free contraceptives. Trivial savings can be made on matters such as that. It is not possible to save money on the main items of council expenditure. It is not possible to save on education, except perhaps on the trimmings. Does anyone suggest that we should save on the police force, or on the collection of salvage, or on the disposal of sewage? It is not possible to save on those services, and to suggest that major savings can be made by one party or the other is nonsense. Irrespective of which party is in power, savings can be made only on the trimmings. Unless a council neglects its duty it is not possible to save a significant amount on its services.
As a result of revalution a 30 per cent. increase is expected in the rates. I shall be delighted if the Government tell us how, with the present rating system, Birmingham can limit its rate increase to 5 per cent. without neglecting its duty to provide the necessary services. It must


be emphasised that the major factor in the rent increases in our large cities is revaluation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) rightly said. Business companies and industrial concerns may benefit to the extent of 25 per cent. but the amount that the domestic ratepayer will pay will increase substantially.
If the low wage earner—the man who works for the council, for instance—is told that his wage is to be allowed to go up by only 4 per cent. plus £1 as a maximum, and at the same time is told that his rate bill is to go up by 30 per cent., he will not understand what it is all about and he will conclude that it is simply a method of taking him for a ride, which to a large extent it is.
I appeal to the Government—and the appeal comes not just from one party but also from the local Conservative Party through the Birmingham Mail—to do something about the present situation. This matter is outside party politics. The Government should consider freeing the revaluations. There is no reason why the present valuations should not continue for another year. If he feels that he cannot do that there will have to be substantial further financial assistance to those cities hardest hit by the revaluation.
Therefore, I entirely support the claim for an addition to the rate support grant. It may be the largest we have had so far, but the increased costs are also much the largest we have had so far, and the revaluation has not taken place before. I do not care how the Government do it, but assistance must somehow be given not merely to the hard-pressed local authorities but, particularly, to the hard-pressed domestic ratepayers. They are the people I am concerned about.

9.0 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I support what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) has just said about the importance of giving specific and direct help to cities, such as our city of Birmingham.
There are many reasons why our domestic ratepayers will be under stress after the present revaluation. One is that in the past mistaken decisions were made stopping industry in Birmingham from

advancing as it might have done. I do not want to dwell on that, but I strongly support the plea for help, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, comes from all sides.
I was attracted earlier to the suggestion that postponing the revaluation might be a way out of our difficulty. We all know how important it is at present to look very carefully at any increased expenditure and increased demands thrown on local ratepayers. Therefore, it seemed as though postponement might be reasonable. But I make the point that at this stage, when the plans for revaluation have gone very far, that would throw great difficulties on many local authorities. If that is so, and it is not possible to postpone it, there is no doubt that cities such as Birmingham should be given specific and direct help to alleviate the burden. Our local paper has estimated it to be possibly no less than an extra 30 per cent. That cannot be allowed by the Government at this time.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. David Clark: Every other speaker in the debate has spoken for the large cities, explaining the terrible difficulties that they face. My hon. Friends have said that the extra £196 million is not enough at this time of such high inflation.
I come from an area which does not comprise a big city but is sandwiched between the conurbations of Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds. We, too, have great difficulties. Unless we receive extra rate support grant we shall have great increases in the rates, particularly for domestic ratepayers.
It has been said that the £196 million increase represents an extra 8 per cent. or 10 per cent., but it must be borne in mind that the recent revaluation alone, with its shift of emphasis from industry to the domestic ratepayers, will probably add 3 per cent. to the average domestic ratepayer's rates this year. Therefore, almost immediately we find some of the increase being devoured.
Hon. Members have spoken of difficulties in their own cities to show why the increase is not sufficient. I should like to show that the problem exists even outside the cities, and to take two very different areas of my constituency. One, on the east side, is an ex-mining area,


where there is no Conservative councillor. On the other side—the Saddle-worth area on the Manchester side—there are only two Labour councillors. They are very different areas, with different political complexions, yet both are suffering greatly from the present inflation and the revaluation.
The difficulties are acute now because local people are rightly demanding ever better and more efficient local government services. But unless there can be a massive increase in the rate support grant there will be injustice for many ratepayers outside the cities. Either they will face rate increases of up to 30 per cent. in places or they will see their services cut to a minimum.
In Denby Dale, for example, the domestic ratepayer faces an average increase in valuation of 3·4 times, and in Saddleworth the figure is roughly the same. The Saddleworth case underlines the point that I am making. The multiplier there is 3·125. The result is that for Saddleworth urban district this year—a year in which we face inflation, and in which requests to try to keep down rate increases are made—the rate support grant is cut from 45 per cent. to 32 per cent., a reduction of £52,000 according to the treasurer, which means that rates will have to be increased by 10p in the £ to cover the loss in rate support grant itself. Those are figures produced by the treasurer of the Saddleworth Urban District Council and reported in the local paper. They show the difficulties which confront the local council and its officials.
The matter has to be taken a stage further. As an urban district, Saddle-worth has a precept upon it by the county council. Because the domestic rate has risen much higher than the average, the precept demand from the county council on Saddleworth rates will be increased by one-fifth more than the average for the rest of the West Riding.
In the same area, half the population face a water rate increase of 45 per cent. while the rest get off lightly with an increase of 23 per cent. Also, increased provision will have to be made for SELNEC, and the compounding will be lost because of the increase in the rateable valuation.
Those facts show the extent of the problem faced by a council such as Saddleworth. I cannot predict what its rate increase will be, but, obviously, it could be in the region of 20 per cent to 30 per cent. on last year, even if it can peg its expenditure at last year's level.
I am sure that the Minister recognises that this is not a satisfactory state of affairs. If we are to try to explain to people in urban districts such as Saddleworth that there is some social justice, and are to try to explain why their wages are frozen while their rates increase by up to 30 per cent., more cash must come from the Government.
It is even more ironic in some senses because one way by which local authorities might try to reduce the increase would be by pawning the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) said, some urban districts have reserves. These urban districts are to go into metropolitan districts under the local government reorganisation—one centred round Oldham and one round Huddersfield. I need not emphasise that these will not be rich metropolitan districts; they are on the small side, with low rateable values. It will be disastrous for the reform of local government if the constituent local authorities which make up the larger units enter those units without any reserves, and I hate to think what the consequences will be in 1974 if we fail to get action from the Government to increase the rate support grant.
It is ironic also that these are intermediate areas with the problem of having only one industry. They are areas which the various Governments have tried to help by producing a reasonable road communication system. We look to that as a way of solving the problem, yet we find that one reason why the revaluation is so high is that
The demand to reside in rural areas, made possible by an improved road system, has caused residential values to increase relatively faster than urban areas.
So, having built the roads to try to help the expansion of the areas, we now find that either the rates have to be increased at an exorbitant pace or services, especially those services to do with environmental matters, have to be cut back. I fear that the efforts which are made to


clean up an area, which are also necessary to attract new industry, will suffer.
While I appreciate the terrifying and terrible problems of the cities, I know, too, of the problems of the urban districts and the rural districts. Therefore, while the increase is large it is not generous enough and it must be increased if there is to be social justice.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: I should like to draw attention, under the heading of the Rate Support Supplementary Estimates and grant aid to local authorities, to certain points of principle and to apply them to one city I know well.
On the first point of principle I wonder how far the Government have considered the peculiar problems of cities which are undergoing massive and costly redevelopment largely but not entirely financed by local ratepayers at a time when the population of its rateable area may be in rapid decline. I have in mind, of course, the city of Newcastle. About 20 years ago—the point is relevant—four parliamentary constituencies of approximately 60,000 adult population were created in the city. Now one of those has fallen to less than 30,000, one to 46,000, and one to 40,000, and those figures include the 18-year-olds. The only one to have held its population has done so largely because of rehousing outside the city boundary.
The development of the city is highly costly, and its services are provided not just for the residents of the city but for people living throughout Tyneside and areas beyond with relatively low rateable values, who use the services of the city the burden of which falls upon a relatively ageing population. It may surprise the Minister to know that in my constituency of approximately 47,000 people there are nearly 15.000 over the age of 60, many of whom do not qualify for the various subsidies. An intolerable and utterly oppressive burden of taxation will, therefore, shortly be placed upon the shoulders of many thousands of householders in the city.
The current talk is of an increase in the rate levy of 25 per cent. That is expected in a city which is already one of the most highly rated in terms of its

levies in the United Kingdom. In practical terms, apart from the increasing burden being related not to the ability to pay but to the property occupied, it means that the city council is faced with a prospect of cuts to save money and so reduce the burden. Leaving aside the moral issues, large-scale elections are about to take place and nobody pretends at this time of the year that the issue of the rates does not count.
There is one issue that I know to be dear to the Under-Secretary's heart and about which, as he knows, I have the deepest respect for him—smoke control. I heard the Under-Secretary sincerely appeal for the clearing of the filthy air in the area which is mainly located in the east end of the city, the west end having been largely made a smoke-control area. I gaze out in the morning from my bedroom window over the smoke-filled atmosphere. I know that I have the Minister's support in this: I think that he may be unaware that, although many promises have been made to him that the authorities will act quickly in this matter, currently the city is discussing a cutback in the appointment of the staff necessary to free the east end of the city of the filth and the smoke and to create a smokeless zone as an economic measure, for that cutback would help to reduce the massive increase in the rate burden that would otherwise fall on the shoulders of the city.
Incidentally, this is a city with one of the highest incidences of lung cancer in the United Kingdom and of asbestosis among shipbuilding workers and pneumoconiosis among mining workers and one of the highest rates of bronchitis in the United Kingdom—again, especially in the east end of the city, which is the filthiest area. In order to achieve an economy of £7,000 or £8,000 or £10,000, the city treasurer is giving himself considerable worry thinking how to reduce the burden on the ratepayers of the city.
Another human issue is transport. Not long ago there was a massive increase in the cost of travelling on Newcastle's former corporation buses, now run by the Tyneside Passenger Transport Authority. A half-fare system for pensioners and the disabled when the cost of transport was rapidly increasing meant a crippling burden. I could quote instances of elderly people's choral societies that


used to travel round the city entertaining one another or elderly people's bowling clubs and similar activities having to be abandoned because of the cost of travel arising from the increase in the PTA's fares.
In the east end of the city where we have many old people we collected the signatures of 10,000 elderly persons in one constituency and sent them to the corporation, which in turn sent them to the PTA requesting a minimum fare of 1p or 1½p. The Labour-controlled PTA went one better: it agreed to free transport for the elderly, and the mass of the elderly people of the city welcomed that. The authority explained that it would have to go back to the local authority for a substantial sum to finance the operation.
It is difficult to calculate how much it would cost, because when buses are running anyway it does not necessarily increase the cost of running them to fill them up with elderly people. But because of that situation, the Conservative members of the Newcastle City Council—I know that I am being party political and I know that their motivation is well intentioned—opposed the introduction of free transport for the elderly and the disabled on the ground that it would place an undue burden on the ratepayers at a time when costs generally were rising. A bitter battle is now being fought in the council by the rearguard rump of Conservative councillors—they are in a minority, but the aldermen keep them in power—to abandon a scheme to help not just a few hundred thousand people in the city and its immediate environs but all the elderly people in the passenger transport area.
This problem would not have arisen had it not been for the increasing costs of local government. The city would have been able to afford it. It is because of these real, human situations that I appeal to the Minister to consider ways and means of financing centrally a much bigger proportion of the rate burden which falls upon the city, for the reasons that I have stated. There is a need for national help for several reasons.
The city council has made its representations, of course. It even asked to see the Prime Minister. He said that it

was not a big enough authority to justify his time but that he was seeing some of the larger authorities. I appreciate the point. I am sure that the Prime Minister is a very busy man. However, I suggest that in some respects the burdens falling upon Newcastle are even worse than those in other parts of the country.
I have said many times—I said it even when I was PPS to the Minister of Housing and Local Government—I do not like the rating system. It is regressive and unfair. It bears very little relation to the capacity and capability of the person to pay. We are not discussing that this evening. However, a relevant point to this debate is that revaluation of property is about to commence. In that revaluation there is already prima facie evidence that, although it is said in theory that an X per cent. rise in rateable values means an X per cent. fall in the rate in the £ levied, it all depends upon the proportion of the new rateable value of the city which falls upon the industrial, the commercial or the domestic ratepayer. According to my calculations, the burden which will fall upon the domestic ratepayer in the city of Newcastle is a higher proportion than it was in the past.
About three months ago when this was first announced I made a statement that was quoted in the Newcastle Evening Chronicle in the course of which I said that a massive intolerable burden that would shake the people of Newcastle rigid would fall upon their shoulders before many months had passed. As usual my political opponents said "Ah, Rhodes is scaremongering again." Today Conservative councillors are saying the same and appealing to the Government to help, The forecast which was made then was correct. It is useless for the Government to talk to shipbuilding workers, engineers and others—and council tenants pay their rates, too—about freezing their wages when they know that rents will go up because the rates will go up.
I will continue to fight in my constituency for higher pensions and for an end to the wage freeze in order to maintain the living standards of the people. I will not co-operate with the Government's policy of a freeze on incomes unless they are prepared to ease the burdens which fall upon the shoulders of my constituents. The burden which will fall upon


Newcastle citizens will shake them rigid in a few months' time. I think that they will pay their rates in anger because they will feel there should have been more Government help for schemes of development which were not for the benefit of the elderly, many of whom will be dead before their real value is felt, but which will be more to the benefit of people moving in and out of the city each day who do not pay rates in the city.
Council tenants will fight bitterly against increases in their rents which will inevitably arise from the rate increases, leaving aside any effect of the fair rents policy.
If the Government will not act fairly in this matter, I say in all seriousness that this will be the biggest rate increase ever to have fallen upon the citizens of any city in the country, and we shall fight every Conservative candidate in my constituency unless he presses the Government successfully on this issue
When I first became a Member of Parliament for Newcastle it was dominated by Tory councillors. I warn the Minister that unless the Government respond to the pressures coming from councillors on both sides, we shall clear every member of his party out of my constituency on polling day.

9.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I think that the House will very much regret the steep decline in the standard of debate from its beginning, where the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), followed by his colleague the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) spoke with moderation, good sense and some knowledge of the complexities of the rating situation in the country. I am only sad that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes), for whom I have some regard, as he knows, should have concluded the debate from the Opposition side of the House with something that was no more than a piece of local electioneering in very doubtful taste. In reply I shall address myself mainly to the serious points that have been made by hon. Members earlier.

Mr. Rhodes: Is it wrong, as a member of a political party, to indulge in a political party argument on an issue which affects one's constituents? As for knowledge, I happened to teach the subject of local government finance for 10 years. I know the complexities. I am saying that this is basically a political issue for which the hon. Gentleman's Government must take responsibility. If the hon. Gentleman says that that is in bad taste, then all our debates in this House are in bad taste.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates by his sensitivity that he has something, perhaps, for which to apologise; but I leave him to accept responsibility for reducing the level of the debate to the local electioneering in which he engaged.
What we have been discussing, not for the first time, are really two separate problems, one of them being the impact of revaluation on local authorities and the other the special difficulties of some local authorities, notably in the great cities, which are faced with the need for above-average expenditure on their many social problems but which in some cases are receiving a decreasing share of the rate support grant. I think that that defines the parameters of our debate this evening.
A number of hon. Members spoke of revaluation as if it were some terrible infliction upon the suffering population. One hon. Member spoke of his constituents "suffering" from revaluation. From the speeches we have heard, one would have supposed that some Opposition Members assume that the present relationship between rating assessments is right and fair and should be retained all over the country, that any change that is made in these rating assessments must be wrong, and that it is for the Government, who have allowed this change to take place, to defend making it. But this is not the situation at all.
As we all know, rates are a tax on property. We may not like it, but that is what they are. The amount of the tax is based very simply on the value of the occupancy of that property. Those values of occupancy of property, in the real world, always have and always will change with time and circumstances. Some areas get richer and some get poorer. They change, but they do not


change uniformly. Obviously, if they changed uniformly between one part of the country and another we could manage perfectly well without revaluations. But in the real world that is not so. Some values increase more than others, and some fall. Therefore, revaluation is not a plague or an infliction. It is absolutely fundamental and essential to any rating system. If it is not undertaken, people who pay rates in respect of property which has not risen in value as much as the average end up paying far more than their fair share of the rate-borne expenditure, and those whose values have increased by more than the average end up paying less than their fair share.
I therefore ask the House to recognise that revaluation itself is not an injustice; it is bringing fairness as between one ratepayer and another, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Gorton. who understands the subject very well, will understand that from time to time revaluations are indispensable.

Mr. Marks: I think the criticism is of revaluation at this time, in the middle of a freeze, and that by it the Government are causing an upheaval in the amounts which people have to pay—people on average earnings who do not qualify for rebates, and so on, and are probably in houses where they will suffer most. They are organised workers, too. All I am saying is that the Government should consider this in the light of their counter-inflation policy.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The Minister may deal with this point at the same time. Surely the circumstances are different, because the rise in the rating valuation of domestic property is due to the extraordinary inflation which has taken place in house prices. This is surely the exceptional circumstance which justifies delay or reconsideration of the whole question of revaluation at present.

Mr. Griffiths: I will come to inflation. I just wanted to get clear, at the very beginning, what revaluation is. I hope that there is no disagreement on either side about that.
In the Government's view it is those who postpone revaluation and therefore prolong inequities as between one citizen and another who ought to be on the defensive at this time. It will be within the memory

of everyone in this House that the last Administration, when they postponed revaluation, which should have taken place in 1968, did not argue that postponement was a good thing; on the contrary, they clearly recognised that it was a bad thing. The fact of the matter was—and the House may be interested to learn this—that they needed valuers for a new creature, the Land Commission. That was the reason why they did not carry out the revaluation at that time. It is because of the postponement in 1968 that we are now having rather bigger changes than one would normally expect in correcting the present inequities in the distribution of rate liabilities.
In this context the fact that values have gone up is not important; what matters is the rate call on the individual citizen. The assessments themselves are quite objective; what counts is the levy which the local authority will make. Therefore, I cannot emphasise too strongly, in contrast to so many hon. Members who have threatened increases of enormous sizes within their constituencies, that no individual ratepayer will know how he will fare under the combined effect of revaluation, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the decisions of his local authority on expenditure, till he has ascertained his new rateable value and has multiplied it by the rate in the pound fixed by his local authority. Till that sum is done, all the oratory which has been heard in this House tonight does not inform the citizen what his exact burden will be.
I will reply now specifically to some of the points which have been raised.
The hon. Member for Gorton, who spoke with great moderation and good sense, challenged the figures in an increase order—for the first time ever, I am advised, in the memory of the House. He is perfectly entitled to challenge them, but they were based on information provided by the local authority associations, including the Association of Municipal Corporations, and they have been agreed by the local authority associations as being correct.
The figures represent the actual increases in costs between November 1971 and November 1972 as they affect local authority expenditure for the current year. The effect depends on the timing of particular increases. I hope


the hon. Gentleman will accept that the calculations are made on the information provided and agreed by the local authorities.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Liverpool inflation. I am advised that Liverpool claims to have made no provision in its budget in April 1972 for any inflation in 1972–73. I am not criticising Liverpool for failing to do that, but most other local authorities have made provision for it, and we shall be looking into this in the monitoring procedure.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South made a good contribution—all ship-shape and Bristol-fashion. He asked me for more details. I will read his speech carefully tomorrow and send him such breakdown as I can. He will understand that the central Government do not necessarily have a detailed breakdown on particular local auhorities, but I will go as far as possible to meet him on that point.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to fall into the confusion that the increase order is concerned to update the price basis of the grants that were fixed in 1970 and does not affect in any way the percentage of expenditure to be met by grant. On the contrary, its purpose is to ensure that despite inflation the rate of grant is kept the same. It was 58 per cent. in the preceding year and it will become 60 per cent. this year. The increase order does not affect the distribution of grants. Bristol will receive the same share of the extra sum as it received of the original grant settlement.
It is a fundamental principle of the rate support grant to make a distinction between increased expenditure due to improvement of services and increased expenditure due to inflation. The improvement of services is dealt with in the main order which provided, last November, for all the factors mentioned by hon. Members—more schools, better social services and so on. Inflation is dealt with by the increase orders, and the Act which governs all our proceedings specifically forbids the Government to take account in increase orders of anything except inflation.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East spoke about smoke control, and I will look into that. He also spoke of elderly people with low incomes in

Newcastle. As it stands, the rebate scheme relieves those who qualify of two-thirds of any increase in rates. Under the order made in accordance with my right hon. Friend's statement, the income limits for a single person from 1st April next are increased from £12 per week to £13·50 and for a married couple from £14·75 to £16·50, and the addition for children is raised from £2·50 to £2·75. The net effect is that from next April those people who qualify for rebate will have to meet only one-third of any increase in their rate bill. I hope the House will acquit the Government of the hon. Gentleman's charge that elderly people over the age of 60 on small fixed incomes in the Newcastle area would be confronted with some terrifying increases.
In terms of expenditure revaluation has its effect on the situation, as does the level of Government rate support. This matter will be looked into by my Department and no doubt will be considered in the conversations which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be having with the large authorities when the whole question of levels of rate support grant can be examined.
At the end of the day the rates paid by the citizen will reflect more than anything the decisions on expenditure made by local councils. It must he emphasised that the cheque written by the local council in deciding on expenditure is drawn on the ratepayers' bank account. The ultimate responsibility must rest with the local authority.

Mr. Marks: The hon. Gentleman said that in considering its 1972–73 rate position Liverpool should have made allowance for inflation. What advice has he to give local authorities on what rate of inflation they should allow for in 1973–74?

Mr. Griffiths: I am quite sure that under the provisions of the Government's legislation, and following the valiant actions of my right hon. Friends, the rate of inflation will certainly come down. I am equally sure that local authorities will assist in achieving what is right in the national interest.
I wish to illustrate some of the consequences in Manchester flowing from the decisions of the local authorities. The hon. Member for Gorton knows that there has been a change in the political control


of the council, and he will draw his own conclusions about that aspect. I shall not attempt to deal with that matter, but will simply give the hon. Gentleman some facts. In education the increase from 1971 to 1972 in rate demand notes in the County Borough of Manchester was 17 per cent. In respect of libraries and art galleries the figure was 23 per cent.; on social services, 37 per cent.; on housing, 26 per cent.; on administration 19 per cent.; and on other services 26 per cent. The total rate call was increased by 30 per cent.
I make no comment on the decisions of that local authority which no doubt judged what was right in its own ratepayers' interests, but the burden on the ratepayer arises in large degree from the decision of that authority to increase expenditure across the board.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Will the Minister accept that it is misleading for him merely to give a list of percentages? What element of those percentages refers to increases in salaries and wages of staffs of local authority departments?

Mr. Griffiths: I have no doubt that wages and salaries represent a significant proportion of the increased expenditure.

Mr. Morris: Therefore, the element of choice did not arise.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that if in any local authority area a group of citizens is able to earn higher wages and incomes it cannot be shielded from the inflationary consequences that that has on the cost of the services provided by the authority. Is he suggesting that if there is this increase in cost, because people in his area have higher incomes, somehow central Government should immediately save that local authority from the consequences of its own decisions? The hon. Gentleman has not thought this matter through.
I turn now to the levels of rate support grant which have an impact on local authorities.

Mr. David Clark: The Minister has not mentioned the urban districts. He has laid great emphasis on the responsibility of elected councillors for the rate levy, and we might accept that. Will he explain to my constituents in Saddleworth why their rates will have to go up by

a minimum of 10p in the pound as a result of a decision by an appointed valuer?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not give him the answer to Saddleworth's rate increase. I will, if he wishes, look at that matter and write to him about it. I hope that he will not go in for unnecessary scares which may turn out to be rather less worrying than he has suggested.

Mr. Clark: rose——

Mr. Griffiths: I must get on. I owe it to the subsequent debates, which have been held up by this rather lengthy debate, to get on with my speech.

Mr. Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to accuse me of alarming people and making a scare?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Yes, it is quite in order.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, intended no endorsement; only that I was within my rights within the House to say what I liked on that subject.
We have settled with the local authorities that, for the first time, the Government will provide 60 per cent. of their expenditure. That is a substantial increase from 58 per cent. previously—in fact, the largest increase ever. In arriving at this figure in negotiations with the local authorities we took into account the increased expenditure that they would have to meet, including that arising from inflation. Some hon. Gentlemen have suggested that inflation comes on top. This was taken into account in the negotiations which took place with the local authorities. We also took into account other factors affecting rates—the effects of revaluation and of the Housing Finance Act on the contribution that authorities will have to make to or receive from their housing revenue accounts.
What is the effect of the 60 per cent. grant settlement? The normal growth of rateable value from year to year is about 2 per cent. from new property coming into the valuation lists. Add to this the fact that local government's share of its own expenditure is reduced from 42 per cent. in 1972–73 to 40 per cent.


in the subsequent year, and we have a situation in which—this is the most important point I can make tonight—the first 7 per cent. of growth of local authority expenditure is absorbed before the ratepayer is asked to dig any deeper into his pocket. It is not a question of local authorities having to cut. It is simply that the first 7 per cent. of any increase that they bring about is taken care of by the extra grant from the Government. It is only on increases above 7 per cent. where they will have to bear their share. If, at a time when we are seeking to moderate inflation, a local authority can count on increasing its expenditure by 7 per cent. and that is met by an additional grant from the Government, it can hardly claim to have been ungenerously treated.
I will now summarise the various points that I have made. The Government have increased the grants to the local authorities for 1972–73 by more than £400 million. We have increased the grants to local authorities by the equivalent of £8 per head of the population of all local authorities in the country. Nothing like that has been done before. The domestic element—that is to say, the direct subsidy to the domestic ratepayer—is increased from 10½p in the pound to the equivalent of 15½p in the pound. That again is an unprecedented increase of 50 per cent. The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), who cares deeply about the personal services and the disabled in particular, will be glad

to hear that the total grant allows a 10 per cent. increase over and above the inflation element for growth in the expenditure of personal social services. Moreover, it allows for an increase of 50 per cent. over two years in the services for the handicapped. I doubt if the hon. Gentleman knew that, but I hope that he will recognise that it is not an ungenerous arrangement.
As a Government defending the national interest, we expect local authorities to assist in the general policy of containing inflation. I believe that we are entitled to ask that of them. All the local authority associations, to their great credit, have agreed to counsel their members to assist us. I only wish that the same counsel had come from some hon. Members opposite.
Rates are a serious problem, and so is inflation. The Government have made a generous settlement to the local authorities. However, I am bound to accept that the increasing problems of our great cities—pollution, transport, housing and social problems, and the rest—confront us all, on both sides of the House. The growing problems of where the finance is to come from to deal with these growing problems is one of the subjects which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will undoubtedly be discussing with the great cities. I welcome very much some of the constructive contributions that a number of hon. Members opposite, as well as my hon. Friends, have made to the debate.

Orders of the Day — ARMY (PAY)

9.53 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish to speak on Defence Estimates, Class XII, Vote 2 C, concerning pay allowances, etc., of Army Reserves, the Ulster Defence Regiment and Cadet Forces. As a representative of Northern Ireland it is most appropriate that I should draw attention to certain matters which arise on the Supplementary Estimates. I remind the House that Subhead C refers to the
Mainly higher level of duty of the Ulster Defence Regiment ….
The Ulster Defence Regiment came into existence because of the disbandment of one of the best forces that Ulster ever had for its defence—the Ulster Special Constabulary.
This House is learning, in the bitterness of bloodshed and murder, of the folly of its decision to pressurise the Stormont Parliament to get rid of that fine body of men. As a result of the action of a previous Government and the action of the Stormont Parliament we find ourselves discussing the Ulster Defence Regiment. The same slanders that have been used across the world to malign the brave men of the B Specials are now being used by the same propaganda machine to malign the Ulster Defence Regiment and members of the British Army. I speak as a friend and a supporter of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I have always been a supporter of that regiment. I call on the men of Northern Ireland to enlist in the ranks of this regiment and help us to defeat the IRA conspiracy.
I pay tribute to these men, who not only take their lives in their hands when they are on duty but are easy prey to the assassin's bullet when they are not. I received a Written Answer today from the Defence Ministry concerning the attempt to murder one of these men on 28th January. An off-duty member of the UDR parked his car, and four men in a private car parked behind him. I am told by the Minister that they surrounded his car and ordered him to alight. He did so. He was just able to reach his pistol, and shots were exchanged. He was wounded, but fortunately he was able to drive off his assailants.
That is an illustration of the fact that members of the UDR are prey to the terrorists not only when they are on duty but when they are carrying out their ordinary private engagements. What is more—and this is what stirs the emotions—these men who stand for law and order are prey to assassins in front of their own families in their own homes——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand entirely the hon. Gentleman's emotion, but may I ask him to confine himself to the question of the increase in expenditure on the UDR?

Rev. Ian Paisley: If you give me time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall relate the fact that we are asked to vote £1,300,000 mainly for the
higher level of duty of the Ulster Defence Regiment
to what I am saying by way of preface. But I should be failing in my duty if I did not point out the difficulties under which these men carry out their work even when they are not engaged in the duties of the UDR. I pay them a warm tribute and I commiserate with those who mourn the passing of brothers, fathers and husbands who will return no more. As a loyal Ulsterman, I salute their memory and the fact that they were prepared to give their lives in defence of their country.
I come to the matter which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, think I should emphasise, and which I shall emphasise. I want to ask the Minister some questions which arise from the fact that he has asked for a Supplementary Estimate mainly because of the
higher level of duty of the Ulster Defence Regiment …".
Many people in Ulster are disturbed and there are some questions which I intend to put to the Minister about the Supplementary Estimate. Was it because his Ministry was not aware of the reality of the situation in Northern Ireland that when he asked for the original amount of money he did not ask for enough? That is a legitimate question to ask.
Is the Minister not aware of the serious complexity of the situation which in the opinion of many in Northern Ireland will continue up towards 8th March,


when there could be a real escalation of violence and when we have been told by certain elements that they will do everything they can to hinder the carrying out of an exercise in democracy on that date? We are entitled to ask whether there was a miscalculation by the Ministry. Was it that those in the Ministry did not fully realise what the whole Ulster situation is really about? Did they not realise that there could be an intensification of the campaign of violence directed against the members of this regiment?
The Minister has confirmed in parliamentary answers that Roman Catholic members of the regiment have been gradually leaving it. There is a reason for their so doing. It is that these men. who are prepared to give their time and, if need be, their lives in the service of the regiment, find that they come under intense intimidation; that they are not only facing the enemy but are the victims of an insidious campaign of very wide proportions which affects not only themselves—and these gallant men can no doubt defend themselves—but their wives and even the smallest children in their families.
Has the Minister now realised the tragedy of the situation that is developing in Northern Ireland? Is he now aware of the forces that seem to be combining in an effort completely to destroy law and order there? Can we be assured that he is asking for enough money this evening, or will he have to come back again and say that this high level of duty means a further stepping up of the amount needed? Is he asking for this present sum because he has not calculated the Northern Ireland situation aright?
Is this additional sum of money needed because a decrease in recruitment means that the present members are now called out more often, have to serve more hours, and hence must be paid more overtime? On 24th January I was told in a parliamentary reply that there had been a decrease of 287 members of the regiment between 29th November and v17th January. Strange to relate, there was an increase of seven in the number of officers. There seems to be an anomaly there.
Again, is it that the rate of dismissals means that a higher level of duty is required by the remainder of the regiment? On 25th January I asked in a Parliamentary Question how many men had been dismissed from the regiment in November, December and January.
The figures show that eight men were dismissed in November, 33 in December, and 88 up to 25th January. One can see the upward spiral of dismissals. Why has there been such a jump in dismissals, from eight in November to 88 in January? Is the Minister taking that into account? Does he feel that there will be further dismissals, and that if the present rate continues hundreds of men will be dismissed in the coming months?
What are the reasons for the dismissals from the Ulster Defence Regiment? Perhaps I may remind the House of the prominent non-commissioned officer in the town of Lisburn who was dismissed. I have had some correspondence with the Ministry about this man. On one occasion he was congratulated by his commanding officer on the way that he trained his men and on the good work that he had done with the regiment. Quite summarily, and without any reason being given—the Minister will no doubt say that no reason has to be given—he was told that his services were no longer required.
In answer to Questions that have been asked in the House about these matters by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), by myself and others, there seems to be great reticence on the part of the Ministry to tell us whether these dismissals are related to membership of certain organisations, and I refer first to the Ulster Defence Assocation, and next to the Roman Catholic ex-Servicemens' Association. Is it a fact that certain men are being dismissed because they were, or still are, members of those organisations?
The money is required because of the higher level of duties to be performed. One cannot forecast how many men will be dismissed in the next three months. I should like the Minister to give us some concrete information about this. A long time ago the non-commissioned officer to whom I referred was a member of the UDA. He resigned from that organisation shortly after joining the UDR. Before being dismissed from the regiment he was


questioned about his association with the UDA, and I think I could draw the conclusion that he was dismissed because of that association. I should like the Minister to be frank and tell us what the position is.
Is this extra money necessary because these men who are subject to attack in their own homes are being permitted to purchase their own weapons for their personal defence and they are to be paid the cost of such weapons? There is a great clamour in Northern Ireland among certain elements who favour the Republican conspiracy for all licensed guns to be withdrawn. Some of the people responsible for this clamour are themselves carrying licensed weapons, so there seems to be an anomaly here.
Is it because these men are subject to attacks in their own homes that they are entitled to claim money for the purchase of weapons for their own defence? The Minister said in reply to a question that the UDA member in question had a pistol. Was it an Army issue pistol, or was it a pistol that he purchased himself and for which he obtained a licence? I am informed by members of the UDR that they are not supplied with service weapons, but if they require them and their commanding officer decides that they should have them they can purchase them. I can supply the Minister with details of individuals having purchased their own weapons. I am very interested in that, because it would be a crying shame if that is the universal practice in the UDR.
Is it because there is a proposal in some districts to disarm the UDR? Some hon. Members think that it is ridiculous, but it is a fact that in certain areas it is proposed that the rifles of UDR men should be stacked in an army camp and that when the men are called out on duty they should make their way to the camp, secure their weapons and then make their way back to the place where they are to go on duty. I refer to my own constituency, which borders on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and to the platoon in Randalstown. Representations have been made to my hon. Friend and myself that when the men of the platoon in Randalstown are called out on duty they will in future have to go to the army camp in

Antrim, secure their weapons there, and then return to Randalstown and go on duty. Some will have to travel 10 miles before going on duty.
I ask the Minister to look into the matter carefully. I have already communicated with his Department. I hope that tonight he can give me and the people of Northern Ireland a firm assurance that there will be no capitulation to the propaganda of the Republican movement, but that the UDR men will be entitled to have their weapons in their own homes for their own defence and so that they can go on duty readily and be made available to do the service required.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Does my hon. Friend agree that we would all support any expenditure which might make for greater efficiency or for the greater safety of the UDR members involved, but that the additional expenditure incurred in the 10-mile journey to Antrim and back would seem to be going in the opposite direction, to make them less effective and to endanger them?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Anyone who knows the area knows that the men have to cross a narrow bridge which leads past a disused railway enbankment. That would be an ideal place for an ambush. It is a terrible situation that the proposal should even be made to the platoon. The men are willingly serving their country, putting themselves at extreme risk in so doing. The House and the Department have the right to give them as much protection as they can in a very difficult situation.
I am sorry that I must keep myself within this Estimate. I come back to the higher level of duty. I hope that it will not be inferred from what I say that I am against money being spent for the UDR. I support its spending, but is more use to be made of the UDR in the coming days? Is that what the Minister has in mind—that there will be a higher level of duty?
The best places for the men to operate in are their own districts, because they know the people there, the people who travel about the districts. When they set up a road block, they know the cars


that do not need to be stopped, the cars of people usually resident in the district, and they can stop strange cars.
In the old days, when the Ulster Special Constabulary was in operation, we never had long queues of cars at road blocks. These queues of cars, in my view, defeat the purpose of the road block because, if a terrorist intends to plant a bomb and he sees a long line of cars stretching, perhaps, for a quarter of a mile, he at once turns his car round and goes by another route. This is what is happening. If, on the other hand, there is a steady flow through the barrier of cars driven by local people known to the members of the regiment, people in the neighbourhood and going about their usual business at that time, such cars may be allowed to pass, and the only cars called in are those strange to the district.
I am sure that that sort of arrangement would better satisfy the general public. There is no doubt that, although the loyalist people of Northern Ireland are prepared to put up with any inconvenience, they feel that some of the inconveniences are not altogether worth while and do not greatly help to defeat the terrorist campaign.
Has the Minister in mind a fuller use of the men of the Ulster Defence Regiment at a higher level of duty for each one of them so that they may be used locally? I know of many instances in which they are being used locally, and that I welcome. I hope that these men will be enabled, as the days go by, to carry out the job with which they have been entrusted by the House, and I wish them every success and the protection of Almighty God in the duties which they have to perform.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on his success in the ballot and on the way in which he has presented the case for wider use of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I support all he said, in particular his concluding remarks. All hon. Members—I am glad to see so many of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland here at this late hour to attend the debate—know that in former times, before they were disbanded, the B Specials coped with

successive campaigns of violence with a degree of capability and flexibility which we have not seen in Northern Ireland over the last three years.
On the front to which my hon. Friend referred last—that is, in the stopping and searching of cars—the B Specials were able to spread their efforts more evenly throughout the Province, especially near border areas, searching in a more flexible manner so that, when Republicans were moving in convoy, as they frequently do, they were able to stop and search those cars which, when the drivers saw a barricade ahead, turned round and backtracked or made off down side roads.
The B Specials were able to do this because a body of locally recruited men have a much better knowledge of the roads in an area than can possibly be possessed by Army personnel stationed in Northern Ireland for three or four months or by the police service or the UDR in the rôle in which it is being used at present.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will explain in detail what is meant in the Estimate by the phrase, "higher level of duty". What is to be the wider scope of the Ulster Defence Regiment? It is becoming increasingly clear to all hon. Members that the Army alone cannot provide adequate protection against the activities of Republican terrorists—both their bombing campaigns, not only in the centre of large towns but in smaller towns, and the hit-and-run attacks from across the border to which we have become accustomed. These cannot be adequately blocked even though we have 20,000 soldiers stationed in Northern Ireland, supported by our local police and reserve forces. Unless the rôle of the UDR is widened so that it operates more like the B Specials there is no hope of containing the murderous campaign from which we have suffered—a campaign which has caused the deaths of about 700 people in three years and has maimed and injured thousands.
What weapons will the UDR be equipped with? Will they be sufficient to deal with the type of attack we have been experiencing in Northern Ireland, not only from the most modern Russian automatic weapons but also from Russian rockets which are capable of penetrating the light armour of the troop carriers and the buildings in which the men are


housed? In country areas the UDR weapons are kept in central armouries. The men serve in their spare time and it is a great deterrent for them to have to waste an hour collecting their weapons and taking them back after duty when they could be providing the type of service expected of them.
Will the Minister reconsider whether it is possible for these men to keep their weapons at home? That would enable the men to deal with attacks from four or five assassins, which has been the type of attack mounted in the past against UDR men living in isolated houses and near the border, and against the Roman Catholic members of the regiment who have been singled out by the IRA for vicious attack in their own homes. Has thought been given to providing a proper alarm system by radio communication to these men's houses, particularly in the outlying areas?
The situation facing the men of the UDR, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the reserve police has been aggravated by the Government's action. The political initiative taken about nine months ago did nothing but encourage the terrorists and the Republicans, and it struck dismay into the loyal members of the population.
I hope that in the difficult days ahead, following publication of the White Paper and when the plebiscite is taken, adequate preparation will be ensured to meet the type of emergencies which most of my hon. Friends and myself foresee in the Province. There will have to be early action to strengthen the UDR, to give the men better equipment and to review the rôle of the force, because unless that is done there is no hope of meeting the present terrorist challenge or of containing and defeating the type of attacks which are likely to be mounted.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I entirely support the vote of money for the increase in the UDR duties. I rise to speak under the shadow of five young men mindlessly murdered in the past 48 hours. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me briefly to condemn—and I know that the House joins with me in condemning—the dreadful recurrence of assassinations in Northern Ireland. I condemn murders, whether by

extremist Roman Catholics killing Protestants, or extremist Protestants killing Roman Catholics, or even by just ordinary criminals, as may well be the case in many instances, making use of the complete breakdown of law and order and the anarchy that prevails in many parts of our Province. It makes no difference who does the shooting—young lives are lost, families are bereaved and the community slides even deeper into the morass of emnity and indifference.
A beleaguered community, which is what Northern Ireland now is, sees little difference between the slaughter of 700 civilians by IRA bombs and explosives and more than 200 police and soldiers, including members of the UDR, to which we are referring this evening, and the individual murder of young men and boys which have recently taken place in Northern Ireland. It is utterly deplorable that the Ulster community should have been deprived of the security that every country is entitled to expect for its citizens.
The number of people who have died in Northern Ireland over what some might regard as a relatively short time of a few years is the equivalent of 40,000 people dead in Great Britain, and that is a staggering number. If a single policeman is shot elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the whole power of the State is set in motion. Things have reached such a pass in Northern Ireland that the murders pass almost unnoticed.
Having said that, I turn to the Supplementary Estimate for the Ulster Defence Regiment. The UDR is playing its part with the Army and the police. With the Army and the police, it is one of the principal but less publicised instruments that the Government are using to combat terrorism. But the community at large is not convinced that it is being used to its full effectiveness. I have advocated for a long time the setting up of local units of platoon strength of the UDR. Men—and women, too, when they return home from the factory who could don their uniforms and go into the streets and countryside that they know and defend and protect their brothers and sisters no matter what their policies or creed.
It is difficult for our courageous soldiers, who go to Northern Ireland as strangers, to know who is a stranger in


a town or village or townland. Local people know local people. If the Government have the courage to establish local platoons, local units and a full-time battalion, we should go some way towards bringing terrorism in Northern Ireland to an end. For the great majority of the people of Ulster this is a task untinged by any thought of religious differences.
I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you allow me to make a personal remark. The County Down Battalion, based at Ballykinlar, which is partly in my constituency, had as its second in command a highly respected Roman Catholic—a Major Beaumont—who unfortunately died some months ago of a heart attack. He was a keen and able officer, and was second in command to Colonel Dion Beard, a distinguished officer who is shortly leaving Northern Ireland. Major Beaumont was respected by the men who served under him. He was not the kind of man to be put off or frightened by IRA threats. He was determined to serve the community, and he put his loyalty and duty to it above all else.
Both my hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) have referred to IRA intimidation. Unfortunately, it has reduced the number of Roman Catholics serving in the Ulster Defence Regiment to 4 per cent. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary regrets this, as I do and as others do in Northern Ireland. I do not know what the highest total strength of the UDR has been, but my impression is that it has now fallen to around 9,000. This is to be deplored at a time when they are needed more than ever.
Is enough being done to publicise the regiment? It may be said that there is no need to publicise it. We are living in the midst of an emergency when every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland knows that we need people to come forward to defend our homes, our factories and our whole institution of government. But I feel that there has been a falling off in the placing of advertisements in local and provincial newspapers and on television. In addition, local recruitment would be encouraged if the Government formed local platoons. I wonder whether the Government are

prepared to take this crucial step—because it is essential to the future of Northern Ireland.
In my own village of Millise in County Down, men in the Ulster Defence Regiment have to travel up to 30 miles, which is a considerable distance after a hard day's work in a local factory, or in one of our world famous factories in Belfast, or on the farm, to do their stint of duty. It is really too much to expect of human beings, and it is surprising in the circumstances that the regiment has attracted and kept so many good men. Long may it continue.
The need for some form of personal defence for these men is an urgent question. Men serving in the UDR who have considerable distances to travel—or, for that matter, no great distance to travel—should be provided with the means of protecting themselves when they are going from their headquarters back to their homes. IRA men are constantly on the look-out for members of the security forces. They note the registration numbers of their cars, and they wait for them outside their homes. We know to our regret that some UDR members have been shot down in the presence of their wives and children.
There is not a single member of the Opposition present. But it is even more regrettable that the political leaders of the minority in Northern Ireland—I am positive that they do not represent all the minority—have actually discouraged young men from serving in the Ulster Defence Regiment. I think it was Mr. Austin Currie who met Roman Catholic members of the UDR and passed on the message that that was not the place in which they ought to be. The terrorists in Northern Ireland will not be defeated until the community as a whole sets its whole mind against them and shows by its action that these thugs can find no sympathy anywhere in the province.
Ulster's political future, shortly to be outlined in the White Paper, depends fundamentally on the restoration of order as rapidly as possible. So we must do our best for them. I wonder whether the UDR is properly equipped. Has it enough armoured cars? Can it not be provided with helicopters and all the sophisticated weapons with which the Regular Army is provided?
Such equipment will entice other men to come forward and serve in the regiment. I regret that only 9,000 citizens in Northern Ireland have come forward to serve in the regiment. I would be out of order to talk about why so many people decline to serve in the regiment at present.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Would not my hon. Friend agree with me that it is regretted that when many ex-Servicemen who have had distinguished careers in the Army, many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who are now retired and many members of the Ulster Special Constabulary applied for membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment they were refused? Is that not something to be greatly deplored and regretted?

Mr. Kilfedder: It must be a case of great minds thinking alike, because my hon. Friend has anticipated what I was just about to say—I think that this is within the terms of the debate—that it was a political decision and a wrong decision by the Government to exclude many members of the B Specials who had for so long, honourably and for a mere pittance, served the Province in holding back the terrorists. But even at this late hour, perhaps the Government will say, "Tell these men to come forward. We welcome them because of their experience and local knowledge, and we certainly respect their integrity and the service which they have provided to Northern Ireland."
I wonder whether enough men are being trained as officers in the UDR. The limited number of officers plays its own part in limiting the effect of the regiment and putting a brake on recruitment. I want to see more than 9,000 men. I want to see the Regular Army helped to an even greater extent by a greater number of people in the UDR. But I want the Government to use the regiment effectively. If the Government are seen by the people of Northern Ireland to be using the UDR effectively and properly a great many more people will come forward to serve the community.
The UDR has a vital rôle to play in the return to sanity. We ought to be unstinting in our praise of the magnificent work which members of the UDR are doing in difficult and dangerous circumstances. We cannot forget that many have

been killed, Protestant and Roman Catholic, as I had said earlier, in front of members of their families. These men will be remembered as the men who, night after night, came to the aid of the community when Ulster needed them.
I ask the Minister to bear in mind what has been said in this brief debate. I ask him especially to remember my final point about former members of the B Specials and to see whether he can, even now, bring them into the ranks of the Ulster Defence Regiment.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: There is one point I want briefly to make. As has been mentioned, there are occasions when members of the Ulster Defence Regiment live with their families in areas close to areas of danger and where they have anxiety about their safety because of the location of their dwellinghouses. In those circumstances it seems to me that they ought to be able to have some form of priority in rehousing.
I was recently in touch with the Housing Executive on this matter, and it seems that priority is not given to such members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who, I must remind the House, are members of Her Majesty's Forces. Members of the Army serving in Northern Ireland are living in barracks or special conditions where they and their families have more effective security than members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. My request to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is brief, and I am sure he will be sympathetic to the point. It is this. Where a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment is living close to an area where there is reason to think there is potential danger, then, in those circumstances, and in conjunction with the Housing Executive, some form of priority, in recognition of his services, should be given to that man for rehousing, if that is his wish.

10.41 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Peter Blaker): The House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for raising this subject, which he rightly described as opportune. He put to me, as he admitted, a good many questions. He was not the only one of the hon. Members who have


spoken to do that. I shall do my best to answer his questions, and those put to me by my hon. Friends.
I welcome very much the feeling, which has been shown so clearly by all the hon. Members who have spoken, of support for the Ulster Defence Regiment. The hon. Member for Antrim, North expressed his support in forthright terms for the regiment and I hope that his remarks will evoke a similar response of support for the regiment from all men of good will in Northern Ireland, of whatever opinion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) had some relevant questions and I shall come to them in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) deplored the dreadful recurrence of sectarian murders in recent days after a preiod of what appeared to be improvement, and I should like to join very sincerely with him in the sentiments of regret and horror he expressed. He advocates that platoons should be set up in local areas, and he mentioned the possibility of a full-time battalion. I shall return to this matter in a moment. I welcome very much his concluding words, in which he said—I think I got his words exactly—that the UDR has a vital rôle to play in a return to sanity.
As for the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), he has already taken up this matter with me. As he understands, it is not within the power of my Department to deal with it, but I can give him this assurance, that I have not lost sight of the very important point he makes and that I shall press it.
The debate has been entirely about the Ulster Defence Regiment. The Vote that we are discussing covers rather wider ground and, before dealing with the UDR, I will explain how the £1,300,000 is made up. It represents about 90 per cent. of the £1;½ million that may be required. I understand that to be the custom when Supplementary Estimates are presented at this stage. The £1½ million is made up as follows: about £500,000 is for expenditure on the TA&VR, nearly £900,000 is for the Ulster Defence Regiment and about £75,000 is for the cadet forces.
Recent publicity may have left the impression in some people's minds that the Ulster Defence Regiment is a regiment with problems. Ever since its inception the regiment has suffered in the public eye. Some people in the Province resented its creation and looked hopefully for its failure. The people who took that view have been disappointed. They have seen thousands of their fellow-citizens joining up to form a force of 11 trained and disciplined battalions which give sterling service in support of the Regular Army. I take this opportunity of adding my tribute to those which have been paid to the members of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
I should like to put right what may be a misapprehension on the part of some of my hon. Friends. The reason for the Supplementary Estimates for the UDR is a story not of problems but of success. The Supplementary Estimates are largely accounted for by a higher frequency of turn-out than was assumed when the Estimates were prepared. That answers one of the questions put by the hon. Member for Antrim, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East. I am speaking here of voluntary turn-out. Another factor is that the regiment was called out on a full-time basis at the time of Operation Motorman, and did a useful and effective job in support of the Regular Army. That added to the expenditure of the regiment.
Last week the strength of the regiment was 353 officers and 8,483 other ranks, a total of 8,836 men. Morale is high, and hon. Members can be assured about the regiment's operational capability. An average of nearly 500 men are turning out for daytime duties, and about 1,300 are turning out every night of the week. Those are impressive figures.
The range of duties of the regiment remains within the terms of reference in the White Paper of 1969. As I say, the number of men turning out and the frequency with which they do so are higher than was estimated and a credit to all concerned. The high turn-out does not arise from difficulties in recruitment and more frequent turn-outs by a smaller number of men. I hope that will allay the anxiety of the hon. Member for Antrim, North. The decrease in numbers in recent weeks to which the hon.


Member referred is due principally to the loss of men who were not playing their full part in turning out for duty for reasons which vary from one person to another. That is the principal factor in the reduction of numbers in the regiment. Recruitment having gone well for much of last year, it dipped from November until Christmas. I am glad to say that it is now picking up.
The regiment concentrates on routine tasks in the countryside to allow the Regular Army to make the maximum effort where it is most useful. The operations carried out by the regiment are indispensable and, in a quiet way, they contribute to the more spectacular successes achieved by the regular army.
The UDR has had noteworthy successes. For example, this month near Armagh one UDR patrol routed an ambush, seized two men and found four firearms in their attackers' car. Therefore, they do not only carry out routine duties. During Operation Motorman the regiment turned out on a full-time basis and its response was magnificent. From 29th July to 13th August the number of men on duty was 4,780 with a peak on 2nd August of 5,357 men.
Although manning levels vary from battalion to battalion, by any fair standard of comparison, the current strength of the regiment is well up—some 8,800 out of an establishment of 10,000, or 88 per cent., which is higher than that in the TAVR in the country as a whole. Therefore, we need not become too depressed about the number of its members.
Last year saw a spectacular increase in the strength of the regiment, and it is not surprising there has been a certain amount of additional wastage. Some of the newer members of the regiment may have found their ability to fulfil their obligations was less than they had expected, and naturally they would tend to leave. Again, some members have left the regiment in the normal course of completion of their contractual term of engagement. But we have also taken steps in recent months to ensure that as far as possible only those members are retained who are able to give regular and satisfactory attendance. I hope that this process will be completed before very long.
My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North mentioned the percentage of Roman Catholics in the regiment. I am anxious to see more applications from Roman Catholics to join the UDR. It would not be useful to go into the reasons why their number has declined. It has already been said that their numbers have gone down to about 4 per cent. of the total. However, I assure the House that the balance of the force is a matter of the greatest importance. We shall continue to do our utmost to see that it is as representative as possible of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole.
I take this opportunity of reminding those who may seek to question whether Roman Catholics or any other section of the community can continue to have confidence in the UDR as an effective non-sectarian force that the regiment has given good account of itself since it was formed three years ago. Many of its officers, including its present commander, are Roman Catholics, and the membership of its advisory council comprises Protestants and Roman Catholics in equal proportions.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I appreciate the anxiety to see that Roman Catholics are encouraged to join the UDR, but I hope that this will not debar Protestants from being taken on in the regiment. A common anxiety among Protestants is that in their efforts to get Roman Catholics to join the regiment the Government might refuse membership to Protestants who apply.

Mr. Blaker: One reason for the drop in the percentage of Roman Catholics is that in the last year there have been many new entrants to the regiment, and they have been predominantly Protestants. However, that does not alter the fact that we would like more Catholics.
I remind the House that the policy and procedures for vetting applications to join the regiment were discussed in the debate on the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill in 1969. There has been no change in those arrangements, the purpose of which was to establish on an individual basis that the applicant was of good character, was not an active supporter of any organisation at one or other extreme of the political spectrum, and was likely to act in the bests interests of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole.
The House will recall that the responsibility for deciding on individual applications has been placed on the GOC Northern Ireland. I believe that is right, because the suitability of an applicant to join the regiment or to continue to serve in it is essentially a matter for the Army's professional judgment. I believe that on the whole the arrangements for the vetting of applications to join the regiment have worked well during the past three years.

Mr. Kilfedder: I mentioned the B Specials. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that former membership of the B Specials is not a bar to membership of the UDR? A number of men in my constituency who have been turned down—they are of eminently respectable character—are bewildered and annoyed, and of course there is no appeal against that refusal.

Mr. Blaker: I assure my hon. Friend that former membership of the Ulster Special Constabulary is not a bar to membership of the UDR. Indeed, the figures show that many former members of that body did join the UDR. The procedures for admission are based on an individual criterion, not on former membership of a body such as that. It might be a different matter if such a body were illegal. However, we are not discussing anything of that kind here.
Hon. Members have asked about joint membership of the UDR and organisations such as the UDA and the Catholic Ex-Servicemen's Association. Last Thursday, in a Written Answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, I indicated that membership of outside organisations which were not illegal was primarily a matter for the individual and that our interest was solely in the individual's acceptability for continued service in the regiment.
The question, in short, is: where does his primary loyalty lie? We must have confidence that it lies with the regiment. As hon. Members probably know, all members of the regiment have been reminded that it is a non-sectarian force. They have been reminded that they will be discharged if their former sympathy or affection for the UDA or the CESA is strong enough to affect the performance of their military duties to or to call in

question their future loyalty or impartiality. That represents an increased emphasis on what has always been our policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North, expressed alarm at the rate of discharge. He quoted the figures I had given him about the number of discharges in the last three months. He expressed alarm that the rate might continue. I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that this will not occur. As a result of a delay in the reporting of discharges to the headquarters there has been a time lag. It is partly as a result of a deliberate policy of inviting the resignations of people who have not been showing satisfactory record of attendance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North asked about the creation of local platoons. I think he meant local platoons on a full-time basis, or possibly a full-time battalion. There is no doubt that a case can be made out for that type of unit. However, as hon. Members will be aware, such arrangements would not only require legislation; they would involve a change in the character of the regiment, which is basically a part-time force for duty at nights and weekends. It is right to point out that the part-time force of about 8,000 men is already supported by a number of permanent staff. These are full-time UDR personnel who are referred to as "Conrates" because of the way they are paid to undertake the duties connected with the basic organisation and running of the 11 battalions and 55 companies, including the security of the UDR armouries and other buildings.
We have the formation of this section of the regiment under frequent review. There are at present vacancies in the regiment for people who wish to join as members of the permanent staff.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Government consider introducing part-time platoons operating locally in order to attract the local people?

Mr. Blaker: There may be a misunderstanding. The essence of the UDR is that it is recruited on a local basis as it is a part-time organisation. If the hon. Gentleman has some different type of organisation in mind, perhaps he could let me know.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The concern in the minds of hon. Members is that local people recruited and local platoons should be used in their own district. There are men in my district who are shifted 30 miles to set up road blocks and other men from another district are brought into my district. We feel that local platoons should be used locally.

Mr. Blaker: I understand the points which hon. Members have been making and I shall look into them. I was talking about those members of the regiment who are already on a full-time basis. I remind the House that there is authority in the UDR Act to call in part-time members for full-time service. That was done during Operation Motorman, and on other occasions. In addition, there are about 100 part-time members called out for full-time service at the moment so as to be available for duty during the day as well as at nights and weekends. Therefore, at present there is within the ambit of the regiment a certain amount of flexibility. At present we are continuing to rely on the arrangements and powers that exist in the Act as it stands.
A number of hon. Members asked about the important matter of arms. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North that the extra money in the Estimates is not connected with paying UDR members so that they can buy arms because their own arms are inadequate. The normal weapon with which the UDR is equipped is the self-loading rifle, which is the same as that used by the Regular Army, and there are some sub-machine guns.
Most of the duties of the regiment do not call for equipment other than such personal weapons, radios and vehicles as they possess. It is the Government's view that the scales of equipment issued are sufficient for the regiment's operations, but in addition to the items that I have mentioned, as specialised equipment the UDR has a number of Shorland armoured cars.

Mr. McMaster: Is not my hon. Friend aware that we are concerned about attacks on individual members of the UDR? If a man is in a car and is attacked by a group of people a self-loading rifle is of little use. He must have either an automatic pistol or a Sten

gun, or something that would be much more useful than a rifle, particularly if he is attacked by three or four people acting in concert.

Mr. Blaker: I was about to come to that. I agree that it is an important matter. The basic principle from which we start is that men undertaking duty with the regiment are equipped with the regiment's weapons for the purpose of their duties. Some of them may be kept at home where the man's ability to do his duty is improved by allowing that—and particular local factors would be taken into account by the commander of the UDR in making his decision—but most of the weapons are held in local armouries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North raised the question of the Randalstown platoon, about which he has been in touch with me. I do not have the answer for him tonight, but I assure him that I am treating the matter as urgent and will let him know the result.
Weapons for personal security are in a different category from weapons for duty, and I recognise the concern expressed by hon. Members. The position on such weapons is that if a member of the regiment considers that he needs a weapon for his personal protection he may apply for a service pistol through his unit commanding officer to the commander of the UDR. The weapon would be a Government pistol. Alternatively, he may prefer to acquire a privately-owned weapon, in which event he may apply for a shotgun or other firearm certificate to the RUC through his commanding officer.
I think that the striking example which my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North quoted when I mentioned to him an answer, I think today, of the member of the UDR who must have displayed considerable courage and managed to escape from the situation in which he was in a car surrounded by four assailants demonstrates that the personal weapons available to the UDR can be very effective when used with courage.
On the question of personal arms, I assure the House that the UDR authorities examine applications sympathetically and accept the great majority of those for a service pistol, or they support


the member's application to the RUC for a civilian firearm as appropriate.
I think that I have answered most of the questions that I was asked. If I have not, no doubt somebody will remind me, otherwise it will be too late. If I am correct in believing that I have answered all the questions, I conclude with one further comment. None of us in this country under-rates the achievements and efforts of the Regular Army in Northern Ireland, but while it is easy for people over here to take for granted what the Regular Army does in Northern Ireland it is even easier for them to take for granted what is done by the UDR. This is partly because most of the regiment's duties are unspectacular—guarding the perimeters of key points night after night, conducting checks at vehicle check points, patrolling dark and often dangerous lanes in the countryside, in the knowledge that some of their colleagues have been killed in the course of just such duties.
I believe that in the days to come the value of the UDR's contribution to the security of the Province will continue undiminished. The House will agree that the steadiness of members of the regiment, their disregard of intimidation and danger, and the reputation the regiment has consistently enjoyed as a disciplined, non-sectarian force, reflects the greatest credit on all its soldiers, its officers, and all who have trained and guided it since the early days of 1970.

Orders of the Day — MUSEUMS (PURCHASE GRANTS)

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Ernle Money: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the topics under Class IX, Vote 3, and Class IX, Vote 6, and for the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science to answer to these matters.
First, with regard to the question of purchase grants for local museums, under Class IX, Vote 3, since your selection of this topic two days ago, Mr. Speaker, the House has the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) about the decision that,

subject to parliamentary approval, the acquisition grant administered by the Victoria and Albert Museum to assist purchases by local collections will be increased to £400,000, and that the similar grant administered by the Royal Scottish Museum will be increased to £25,000. That will no doubt be most warmly welcomed by all those concerned with local museums.
The 19th Report of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, which was published recently, recommended on page 6:
An increase to the fund of, say, twice the present annual rate would be insignificant in Exchequer terms but would make a substantial contribution to the enrichment of public collections in the provinces.
I am happy to say that the Government have done better than that. They have raised a grant which over the past few years has been £150,000, subject to Parliamentary approval, to £400,000. There has been a difficult situation for local museums in that both in 1970–71 and 1971–72 the full grant was exhausted within five months, and in the financial year 1972–73 it was exhausted, save for a reserve sum of £6,500 by early August—a third of the way through the year. There will be general pleasure and relief that the acquisition work of provincial museums will now be able to go on far more effectively than in the past.
I turn from that to the perhaps more serious position of the grants involved under Vote 6 for the National Gallery, against the background of the special circumstances of the grant for the great Titian picture of Diana and Actæon. Here I quote from page 2 of the report of the Reviewing Committee:
This pre-eminent work of art was saved from export by what must be regarded as a most exceptional tour de force; but the problem of any satisfactory mechanism for the control of pictures of the highest importance and of such astronomical value remains unresolved. There are other works of no less importance in the hands of private owners in this country which those owners may at any time wish to sell. The demands made by the Titian on the resources of the National Gallery and major artistic trust funds have so depleted those resources that they could hardly make a similar contribution to the purchase of even one more outstanding painting for some little time.
It is apparent form page 103 of the Supplementary Estimates that the purchase price of the Titian was achieved


by the original grant of £480,000 as in the original Estimate, a special grant towards the purchase of the painting of £381,500 from the Government, and the advance of £150,000 out of the annual grant for each of the three years beginning in 1973–74, making a total of £450,000. The consequence is that this major national collection will have little or no money available during this period for the purchase of really major works of art.
I realise that several hon. Members wish to raise subjects in this debate on the Supplementary Estimates, so I shall confine myself to putting four points to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
Our national collections are not protected in any way for the purchase of a really important picture, in present-day terms, for our national heritage. The Velasquez "Juan de Pareja" slipped through our hands, and the Titian was saved only by mortgaging three years' advance.
Second, there is no distinction between the need of the National Gallery to face a crisis of that sort and its need to meet the, so to speak, more ordinary problem of what happens to English pictures which come on to the market. In this connection, I ask my hon. Friend to deal with the Question which is down on the Order Paper for answer tomorrow, asking what progress has been made with the listing of exceptional art masterpieces which was announced by his predecessor on 22nd July—Vol. 821 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, at col. 1842.
Third, I ask my hon. Friend to deal in broad terms with the following problem. In the present state of inflation and the circumstances affecting so many educational and charitable foundations as well as many private people, we can never know what is likely to come on to the market over which no effective control can be administered by the Department as matters now stand. The sale of the Domenichino from Dulwich, which, in fact, had to be approved by the Department, is one example of the risks involved.
My hon. Friend will be aware, particularly against the background of the crisis which arose some years ago over the sale of the Leonardo cartoon by the Royal Academy, that that organisation

alone is sitting on a number of major masterpieces. The Press has been continually concerned, for instance, with regard to the Michelangelo tondo which, on any valuation, must be worth over £3 million at current prices. This is a major work of art which has been in this country for many years. A crisis could develop if it were suddenly to come on the market, and I understand that Her Majesty's Government could have no control to stop it coming on to the market. The national collections as they stand would then be in no position to ask for a further supplementary grant.
Will my hon. Friend deal also, therefore, with the Question which is down for answer, tomorrow, to ask whether his Department will consider appointing a standing committee to review the control of sales of works of art falling within the terms of the Waverley criteria by such semi-public bodies as universities, colleges, schools and other foundations.
The time is coming when we cannot expect the National Arts Collection Fund and the Pilgrim Trust, who were partners to the Government in the acquisition of the Titian and to whom I pay the highest possible tribute, always to bail out the acquisition policies of the major galleries. The amount of money available from these entirely voluntary bodies is necessarily limited. My fourth point relates to the need to establish either an effective sum so that the Reviewing Committee on the export of works of art can have financial teeth, and not merely a legislative basis for recommendation, or as to whether the major collections can have sufficient money in order to have at least an effective acquisitions policy. The risks involved in the absence of such a policy are shown only too clearly in today's edition of the Guardian by the account of the difficulties into which the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York has got itself in recent months. This is described under the unhappy description of "de-accessing". Large numbers of works have had to be put on the market apparently to pay for the acquisition of the Velasquez "Juan de Pareja". The story reads:
One of the biggest art controversies in years has exploded in New York. The College Art Association, the leading professional body for art historians and museum curators, has called for a public inquiry into the Metropolitan Museum. Such an inquiry would be without precedent. The current issue of the


influential journal Art in America calls for the resignation of the museum's director Thomas Hoving. Angry New Yorkers are writing to the Times. The art world in one of the great art cities of the world, always a glorious jungle of intrigue and gossip, is ashriek with rumour and recrimination.
I pay tribute not only to the work which has been done by individuals but to the brave decision of the trustees of the National Gallery to save the Titian at all costs; to the generosity which the Government showed on that occasion. I pay tribute to the important steps which the Government have taken to help by extending the unlimited exemption from estate duty on bequests to national authority and university collections; by the corresponding extension to estate duty bequests up to a limit of £50,000 to the National Arts Collections Fund and, at last, on an unlimited basis; by the extension of the scope of exemption of works of art from estate duty under the Finance Act 1930; and by the acceptance of works of art by the Treasury in lieu of estate duty. All these are major achievements but a situation remains whereby unless our heritage is to be permanently at risk and unless we run the risk of losing works of art like the tondo something must be done on a permanent basis.
I finally refer my hon. Friend to the Question on today's Order Paper asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
whether, in the light of the recommendations of the Nineteenth Report of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, Command Paper No. 5194, she will recommend that, in view of the risk that outstanding works of art may be lost to the UK, particularly at a time when the resources of the National Gallery and the major artistic trust funds have been depleted in saving Titian's 'Death of Actæon' for the nation, that consideration should be given to further financial support for the export control.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am delighted to be able to support my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money), who has taken such a great interest in this subject. Although there are one or two matters on which I might disagree with him on detail, he will appreciate that in the world of art controversy is bound to enter into almost every subject. That is really part of the thrill of entering this field—that there are violent clashes of opinion and disagreement.
I think that what my hon. Friend has said should be looked at against the background of the announcement in Hansard on 30th January, reported at column 358, in which the Secretary of State said that, subject to parliamentary approval, £17·388 million would be available to the Arts Council next year, compared with £13·67 million in the current year. Despite all the difficulties which the nation faces, the Government have set this priority for this activity about which many members of the public care deeply. The special provision for the British Film Institute, asked for by many, of £1·36 million opposed to £1·094 million, is, I am sure, welcome. I must pay tribute to my noble Friend the Minister for the Arts, who has done more than any other to foster this aspect of our work and has succeeded, with the help of a massive private benefaction, to do a fine job for the crafts individually, particularly through reconciling certain differences of opinion among those who are keen to further this aspect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich referred to the increased grants to the Victoria and Albert Museum, especially for local collections, and I am sure we all welcome that. Even Scotland is to be included, and the Science Museum, which my hon. Friend did not mention, is to be given £150,000 for a special fund. How important that is with the renewed public interest is echoed by official interest.

Mr. Money: Perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive my saying that I am not overlooking the total effect of the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister. I was merely concerned with Mr. Speaker's Ruling with reference to Class IX, Votes 3C and 6C.

Mr. Cooke: Perhaps I should have asked for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend who is to answer this debate will agree that this is a magnificent achievement within the confines of the need for public economy, which we all recognise as very necessary at present.

Mr. Money: Hear, hear.

Mr. Cooke: I hope that there are other newspapers apart from the Financial Times, which paid a gracious tribute to my noble Friend. Somehow I did not see it in a number of popular


papers. Perhaps they will take it up after this. They hate being accused of lack of impartiality. They should certainly give the arts their fair share, even at this time; it is not very late—only just after dinner.
It is very surprising that there is not one member of the Opposition present in this debate, not even the bewhiskered gentleman who delights to stand at the Dispatch Box and attack my noble Friend on personal grounds without a policy to back his views. I hope that those who are listening to this debate will note that there is a total lack of any gracious admission by the Opposition parties of the Government's success, or, indeed, any constructive suggestion from them about how we might proceed in future.
To get back to the subject of the debate, there are one or two things I should like to add to what my hon. Friend has said and to give the Government perhaps another line of thought which may be of assistance. I do not deny that my hon. Friend was absolutely right in saying that there are certain things—if I may use such an unattractive word—certain works of art, not just pictures but other things, which certainly ought not to be allowed to leave these shores. On the other hand, there are works of art which have left these shores which we would very much like to have back.
I think that if my hon. Friend ponders for a moment he will agree with me that a freer interchange of works of art internationally would perhaps be no bad thing and that perhaps, in some circumstances, even the possession by a particular nation of a certain work of art is not quite the barrier to worldwide enjoyment that it once was with people now moving across the world with ever-increasing speed and ease.
Tonight, despite the mild setback of one of the American airlines refusing to purchase Concorde, at any rate for the time being, there are others who will be able to fly at twice the speed of sound——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That really cannot be in order.

Mr. Cooke: I thought it was not, Mr. Speaker, so I immediately move on to say that it is possible to enjoy the works

of art which we might want to have here even if they are in another place, however one goes about it.

Mr. Money: I hope that whatever he recommends, my hon. Friend is not recommending that major works of art should be moved about, as came up as one of the suggestions at one stage with regard to the sharing of certain works of art between American galleries and our own, which could lead only to total disaster for their condition.

Mr. Cooke: No, that is not my suggestion. Some things can be moved about but others, I agree, could not and should not be moved about. I was about to say that there should be a freer movement of people across the world as the years went on. Although this is in its infancy, eventually it will be much easier for people to see things even if they are not in this country.
In making his very laudable case for further public assistance to purchase works of art as they come on to the market, my hon. Friend might have addressed himself—I know that he has thought about this privately—to the question why these works of art appear on the market. I think he and I would agree that it is regrettable that circumstances have forced the owners to put them on the market. Certainly the institutions he mentioned—the charitable institutions existing for the public good, showing pictures but not having the wherewithal to run their galleries—might not have found themselves in their present difficult position but for certain political and economic forces. I say "political" advisedly because politicians and Parliament have a strange attitude to the possession of works of art of great significance, because the owners are beset by many forces—taxation amongst them—which result in these things appearing on the market. I think that if the public, through Parliament, thought carefully, they would alter their attitudes about the possession of these valuable things.
I maintain that provided a valuable work of art of national importance is readily available to the public, it is probably far better that it should remain in the place for which it was purchased or commissioned, in a great country house or similar place, than that it should be


removed forcibly by the nation and purchased, with difficulty, and placed in the somewhat clinical conditions even of one of our great national collections, which are at present bursting at the seams.
I do not suppose that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can go very far on this tonight, but I feel that we should think carefully about where we are going because certainly there is absolutely no limit to the insatiable appetite and demands of our national collections if there is to be a great flood of works of art of national significance coming from private and semi-private hands because of political and economic forces. My hon. Friend might like to address himself to that. We had the panic about the Titian and there may be various views about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich mentioned Lord Radnor's Velasquez. If Lord Radnor had not been punished by what I regard as absolutely iniquitous taxation, his Velasquez might still be on view to the public at Longford Castle, where it could be seen in far more enjoyable surroundings than in any gallery, even on the other side of the Atlantic. My hon. Friend may care to comment on that.
When we talk about grants for the arts—that is what the debate is about—we do not just mean the acquisition of celebrated pictures for the nation. These are the things that come up from time to time. Very little attention was given at the time to the export of the Oscott Lectern. I do not suppose that anybody in the House has heard about it——

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): Oh, yes; I have.

Mr. Cooke: Then I exclude hon. Members on this side of the House. I do not suppose that any hon. Member opposite has heard about it. But it is important in the whole history of medieval Gothic art, and in terms of the significance it has for this Palace of Westminster in which we are speaking this evening. It inspired Pugin to revive the true Gothic style, as opposed to all the nonsense that Horace Walpole started, and the efforts of Mr. Burgess and others later. The true scholar of Gothic revival

—Pugin—owed much to this object; and we lost it, although we should not have.
There are other things of that kind, not just pictures. Let us try, in this House, to sink all the differences we might have with the private owner, so long as he is prepared to enter into a working partnership and with the public, which so many owners of historic buildings do. We cannot sell historic buildings abroad, true, but we can let them fall down, and we do not, because the Government give us back a little of the money they have taken off us in taxation and help us to repair them, and we allow the public in, and they see the works of art as well. They do not see a barn of a place, stripped of works of art which have been put into some national collection, because of the agitation on the part of some hon. Members. We should leave them where they are, if possible, in happier surroundings, to which public access can be secured.
My hon. Friend and I are together in wishing to see the best kept in this country. He would now add to what he has said that he hopes that a lot of the things that we have lost abroad will come back.

Mr. Money: Certainly.

Mr. Cooke: My hon. Friend says, "Certainly". That may mean that we must let some things go from this country that we would like to keep but that we are prepared to exchange. We cannot keep everything. I am not trying to trap my hon. Friend or the Government. Provided everybody is happy to exchange, there cannot be anything wrong in that.
We should look at this question against the background of immensely increased finance for historic buildings, and for the arts, for which we all care.
My last point concerns the immensely increased public interest and Government interest in the whole field. My hon. Friend would not——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant with the hon. Member. He is going very wide indeed. The debate is limited to an increase of £9,250 in respect of certain provisions for the Victoria and Albert Museum and an increase of £480,000 for purchases by


the National Gallery—some of it for the Titian. The hon. Member is going much too wide.

Mr. Cooke: Then I conclude by saying that I know that my hon. Friend would not have been able to say anything about ministerial responsibility for the whole field, which we regard as more than simply the acquisition of pictures. At school I remember a Latin tag which sums up all that I wish to say Ars longa, vita brevis which I translate to mean, "The arts are all-embracing but if one values ones life one had better not speak too long about them in the House of Commons."

11.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): Who am I to dissent from such an admirable sentiment, expressed in such beautiful language? I must express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) for raising this subject tonight because it gives me the opportunity to explain to the House how the system of control of works of art in this country operates. These two special grants at the centre of our discussion this evening are a part of the whole.
I am afraid that I cannot follow my hon. Friend's siren counsel to anticipate the answers that will be given tomorrow to Questions tabled on the Order Paper. It would be quite improper for me to do so. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) that we must consider the whole question of these grants in the context of the record sums which, subject to Parliamentary approval, are to be devoted to the arts. The record sum of £17,388,000 is involved, which goes to prove my point that we have become the party of the beautiful people, even if one or two of us are not exactly oil paintings.
In passing, may I say to my hon. Friend that it was rash of him to say, with me sitting on the Front Bench, that there was no one here who knew anything about the Oscott Lectern? It is an object in which I have taken a great interest. Perhaps it will reassure my hon. Friend if I tell him that although it is sad that the Lectern has gone overseas——

Mr. Robert Cooke: It is still in Catholic hands?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In these ecumenical days we do not worry whether it is in Catholic or Protestant hands, or even Jewish hands for that matter, so long as it is in good hands. A lot of the proceeds from the sale of the Lectern have been devoted to beautifying the Chapel at Oscott. My hon. Friend will be able to visit it and see that it is restored to the original condition in which Pugin designed it.
I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich that it is necessary to have a further increase in export control to protect our works of art. The burden of my remarks tonight is that our system of protecting——

Mr. Money: Mr. Money rose——

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Perhaps I may be allowed to develop the point. I am only at the beginning of my remarks. Our system, although a complex one, is effective and is one which offers adequate protection at a number of points.

Mr. Money: I had hoped to save time by saying that my hon. Friend and I would be at one, and certainly his predecessor and I were at one, in agreeing that the Waverley system works admirably. What I want to ask his Department, through him, is whether more money could be made available to let that system work.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If my hon. Friend will be patient and allow me to answer his points in a logical order I will eventually come to that. We must begin at the beginning of our system of protection, which begins with fiscal incentives for owners of important works of art, either to retain them in their families or, if they need to sell them for personal reasons, to sell them direct to public collections. Successive Finance Acts contain provisions which relieve owners or their executors of estate duty if certain requirements on the quality of the works of art are met.
The second line of defence is the purchase grants of the national or local collections. That is the important point to which my hon. Friend has just referred. Purchase grants of the national institutions now amount to £2 million a year


and, subject to parliamentary authority, the assistance provided for local institutions will be increased next year to £400,000 for England and Wales and £25,000 in Scotland. Additional funds of £150,000 and £25,000 are being established for scientific and technological material, thus relieving the previous funds of these commitments.
Finally, the Government are always prepared in certain cases to make additional special grants where the merits justify it, and the two cases to which the Estimates refer, one of which my hon. Friend discussed, provide important examples of this. There has been hardly a mention of the "Bureau-plat" which is being purchased with the aid of the Treasury. But there has been a discussion of the Titian, which is a classic case.
Following the export of the Velasquez "Juan de Pareja", the feeling was growing in some circles that the export control had failed to cope with the current very high prices for major works of art. But the success of the Trustees of the National Gallery in raising their share of the funds required to purchase the painting coupled with the matching grant of the Government went a long way to reassure public opinion that where a painting of importance which met the Waverley criteria was at risk, the Government were prepared to step in and help save the work for the nation. But in advance of any case, we cannot give specific commitments about that.
This assistance to protect what is widely, but rather loosely, called the national heritage is undoubtedly effective. I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West said about private collections. We should note that what is called the national heritage is in large part in private hands, and I am glad that that is so. But it is private property and, of necessity, the powers of the Government over the control of the property of private citizens is limited. But it shows how effective the system is that only one great painting, the Velasquez "Juan de Pareja" has been exported in recent years which the Government's expert advisers thought, and the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art agreed, ought to be retained.

Mr. Robert Cooke: That only became for sale because of penal estate duty. Although my hon. Friend is in no position to guarantee to put that right, that was the reason why it came on to the market.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Obviously I cannot go into estate duty this evening. But, like my hon. Friend, I regard it as at best perhaps a necessary evil. My hon. Friend might not go so far.
Those who raise the alarm on the subject are doing the country not a service but a disservice in a number of ways. They are wrong about the facts, they create unnecessary concern, and they add to the pressures upon owners who might be led to feel that now is the time to sell before the Government have to take more extensive action.
The essential point is that the present system of control serves effectively the purpose of giving the national collections and increasingly the local collections a fair chance to consider whether to try to raise from both public and private sources the money for purchases. It is not the purpose of the Government to stop works of art coming on the market. If a work of art of any importance comes on the market, the Government want to create a situation where those who have a legitimate national interest in acquiring it will have an opportunity to do so.
No discussion of this matter is complete without acknowledgement of the important work performed by the voluntary organisations which exist to help in this task, notably the National Art Collections Fund, but also a number of other charitable and private bodies and persons. I pay tribute to them.
There is also increasing assistance for local collections, and my noble Friend announced on 30th January that, subject to parliamentary approval, the grants-in-aid administered by the Victoria and Albert and the Royal Scottish Museums to assist local purchases would be increased in the next financial year.
Moreover, the Government announced last autumn that the criteria for the acceptance of works of art in lieu of death duty would be widened to include works of outstanding importance in relation to local as well as to national collections. This has already resulted in an increasing flow of works so offered.
To sum up, the arrangements for protecting the so-called national heritage in this country are many and practical. They have the great merit that they work. Many well intentioned people who take a theoretical view of this question might make the problem worse if some of their suggestions were adopted besides committing us to an enormously onerous system of control. To those who criticise the system I say, "Go and see the Titian in the National Gallery. Go and see the Stubbs, "A Couple of Foxhounds" in the Tate, the Hilliard and Eworth portraits in the National Portrait Gallery, and the Domenichino in the National Galleries of Scotland." I could continue the list. If one considers those practical acquisitions, one can see whether the criticism is justified.
My last point concerns the possibility of control by reference to a national list of treasures of outstanding merit. That has been under examination for some time, but there are known to be serious difficulties both in the compilation of a list and in its use, and serious questions of interference with the rights of private owners which we must always consider would arise. In any case, it is fair to point out that such a list could never be totally comprehensive because it could not deal with works of art which are rediscovered, as so happens from time to time.
The subject of the arts is one that interests me very much. I know that it interests my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West. Their presence at this latish hour of the night indicates more graphically than any words the sincerity of their interest in this question.
I should be tempted, Mr. Speaker, were you not in the Chair, to go on and widen the scope of the debate. But midnight approaches, and we all know what happened to Cinderella when she went on too long. I shall therefore follow her example and draw the evening to a close, at least as far as the Department of Education and Science is concerned, by thanking once again my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich for his zeal in raising this most important subject.

Orders of the Day — POLICE (DRUGS AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION)

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I rise in this post-Cinderella period to say that debates in the House on policy on crime are very rare, and when they occur they are usually initiated by a back bencher. There is nothing like the annual review given to defence policy and expenditure. That is a pity, because policy in this area should be put under a much greater scrutiny than it is. That is why I welcome the opportunity of this small debate. It is a narrow debate but it allows us to consider two important units which have been set up in the Home Office to combat two important areas in crime—illegal drugs and illegal immigration.
I believe that this is also the first opportunity that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has had of explaining the work of these two units, the Central Drugs Intelligence Unit and the Central Immigration Intelligence Unit, certainly to the House. The decision to establish these units was announced in a very brief three-paragraph Press release in October, which was not, if the Home Office Press Office will allow me—I am a great supporter of it—one of its most informative efforts. One understands that at that stage it probably was in no position to give more information on illegal drugs and illegal immigration, which are matters of very real public concern, and I hope that the Minister will be able to say rather more this evening.
Perhaps I may deal in turn with these units and the problems which they face. No one who has even superficially followed developments can fail to be alarmed by the problem of illegal drugs in this country. It is a problem which affects many young people in Britain and which poses a very real danger to them. It is a trade in which criminal profits can be very high. Let us be clear about the extent of the problem and the kind of problem which the units and all of us face in this respect in this country. Comparisons are made with the United States, but we in this country have nothing like the size of problems


which they have. Neither in total nor in proportion is the problem of the same measure here and in the United States. This is due to the success of the drugs dependence clinics which have been set up. There is, however, a very real British drugs problem.
I would mention one or two facts about it. Between 1971 and 1972 there was a 28 per cent. increase in drugs offences. Between 1971 and 1972 there were 22 per cent. more drug seizures by Customs and Excise. We have reached a position which, according to the reports given at the Interpol conference at the end of last year, means that our problem in this country is the worst in Europe. The position is certainly that in European terms we have a very major problem in this country. It is a problem which covers the whole range of drugs, and it is not my purpose to go into each one of those this evening, but there are the amphetamines and LSD.
There are in particular two trends, two particular drugs of abuse, of which we should take note, and they are Chinese heroin and cannabis. Reading cases over the last 12 months, I do not think anyone can fail to be impressed by the number of them in which these two drugs occurred, over and over again. Therefore, it is primarily in dealing, certainly initially, with the threat posed by those two drugs that the success of the unit which is being set up will be judged.
First there is the problem of Chinese heroin. All our information is that Chinese heroin originates in Hong Kong, that it is processed there, and imported into the United Kingdom by various means. It is not pure heroin. It is heavily adulterated with other substances, often caffeine. Presumably that is a reason for its appeal to the user, who believes that it is less dangerous than the real thing. In fact it is a very dangerous drug indeed, and the users, in particular, should take note of its very real dangers.
Secondly, there is the question of cannabis, and the trade here is very much greater. Whereas the British heroin trade is dominated by the Chinese in this country the cannabis trade is much more pervasive and it is a much more difficult problem for this reason. It is made much more difficult by the very considerable propaganda campaign which has

been used in an effort to try to make cannabis taking in this country respectable. The campaign of the various groups that have tried to encourage its use are wrong-headed and positively dangerous. I am glad that the Government have set their face against it. The campaigns make the job of the police more difficult.
Against that background, I want to ask several questions about the Central Drugs Intelligence Unit. I understand that the purpose of the unit is to receive and send out information on the misuse of drugs and on known and suspected offenders. The national unit will contribute information to the individual forces and the individual forces will contribute information to the national unit. That sounds fine on paper, but standards of policing vary considerably. Many police forces have drug squads, but the strength and quality of those squads vary considerably. The ability of police forces to devote resources to drug squads varies with the strength of the forces.
The plan, which I support, is for a national drive against illegal drugs. I do not advocate a national drug squad to be the executive arm. Regional drug squads would be much more effective. A national squad would suffer from the same disadvantages as a national police force. It would suffer from remoteness, and it might not earn the kind of cooperation which has been earned by the regional crime squads set up by the previous Conservative Administration, which have gained the confidence of the police forces. The regional crime squads were set up to concentrate on serious crime, and they have proved their worth The misuse of drugs is a serious crime, and the knowledge, skill and experience of the police is all-important. Specialised regional drugs squads drawing staffs from forces within the region would be the natural accompaniment to the Central Drugs Intelligence Unit. Furthermore, regional squads would ensure a much more even flow of information to the unit than is likely to occur under the present arrangements.
Will the unit have an executive arm of its own? Will it be able to carry out its own investigations into serious drug offences, or will it be confined to a purely advisory rôle? The trend in the police service is to employ some of the most experienced and senior officers in


advisory rôles. I would not like to think that the unit, which will have some very senior officers in it, will have an entirely advisory function.
The public would like to know how large the unit will be and what co-operation will take place with Interpol, and particularly with European police forces, The problem with which we are dealing is not so much akin to the situation in the United States, but is a European drug problem. It is essential to have co-operation and links not only with Interpol, but with all European Police forces, particularly now that we are in the Common Market.
What relationship will this unit have with other bodies, especially with educational bodies, in combating the problem of drug abuse by education and publicity? It is surely in that area that some of our greatest efforts are now to be made. We can search for the smugglers or pushers of drugs, but the battle will be won only with the potential users. Therefore, we must give every aid to the various educational campaigns to underline the dangers of drug-taking. This unit fits in well with this kind of idea. It will point to the national pattern and will see any new dangers as they arise.
I hope that such a unit will be quite open about new dangers, for this is not a subject to be cloaked in official or police secrecy. I hope the unit will give information freely and willingly to bodies which have a legitimate interest in fighting and preventing drug abuse.
I turn to the Central Immigration Intelligence Unit which is covered by these items of increased expenditure. There is no question that illegal immigration gives grave cause for concern to many people. There is a worry that the immigration control system in Britain is so obviously under challenge. Illegal immigration is also resented by many of the immigrant community who live in this country, some of whom have relatives queueing to come to Britain. The very fact that such immigration takes place creates suspicion within the community. Illegal immigration also adds to the crime problem, because it leads to blackmail by those who know that a person is an illegal immigrant.
Nobody can give a realistic estimate of the size of the problem, but from time

to time there are assessments of the position by those who know because they are close to the scene. I should like to draw my hon. and learned's Friend's attention to a report by the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, of which I was a member, published last year. The Chief Constable of Lancashire, in a memorandum presented in evidence, said:
There is fairly widespread traffic of illegal immigrants who enter the country surreptitiously in many devious ways, mainly Pakistanis.
Superintendent Taylor of the Lancashire Constabulary, which is the second largest force in the country, asked about the position of illegal immigration in the Lancashire Constabulary area, said:
My inquiries led me to believe that illegal immigration is widespread, and it can cover many aspects such as the man coming into Heathrow Airport, or any airport for that matter, on two months' holiday and then disappearing amongst the large immigrant communities that we have got in this country. It does cause unrest inasmuch as he probably, in some instances, goes to live next door to a person who is making an application for one of his brothers or sisters to enter this country".
When asked by one of the members of the Select Committe whether this was an expensive form of illegal immigration, Superintendent Taylor said:
It is not expensive if they are going to stay here. You see, I say they come for a holiday and then they disappear, so in fact they are not coming for a holiday, they are coming here to take up permanent residence, and it is quite simple to enter by the method that I have lust mentioned.
This is not a survey carried out by a sensational newspaper; this is evidence, presented by senior officers of the second largest police force in this country, which I suggest this House should take very seriously indeed. It indicates that the police, particularly in some areas, regard this problem of illegal immigration as extremely serious.
This is a serious matter because it poses problems not only of crime but of race and community relations in this country.
There seem to be three main methods by which illegal immigration is effected into this country. This new unit that is being set up will be judged on how it deals with those three methods.
First, there are those who try to get into this country by using false papers, documents and passports or try to bluff their way past the immigration officers at the port of entry. Secondly, there are those who come for a holiday and then just disappear, as the evidence from the Lancashire police suggests. They may come as visitors or students. I suggest that in size these are probably the most serious. Thirdly, there are those who enter illegally by boat or private plane. Although it may be thought that they are not the most numerous, they certainly get the most publicity.
It is against this background that we should judge the worth of the Illegal Immigration Unit. I believe that in dealing with the first category—those who attempt to gain entry by the use of false passports and documents—the unit will be of great help. I think that it will develop an expertise in detecting false documents and knowing what to look for. It will be quite invaluable in detecting illegal immigration of that kind.
However, I am concerned whether the Illegal Immigration Unit will be as successful in dealing with the second and third categories that I have mentioned. I suggest that its usefulness may be limited in those areas because there must be a common feature that encourages illegal immigration to this country. Clearly the illegal immigrant must believe that if he manages to enter the country then all is well. He must believe that there will be no overwhelming difficulty in getting a job and settling down. The fact that so many try suggests that they are right. We have very few internal checks. Perhaps our only check is the issue of the National Insurance card. That is the nearest equivalent that we have to the identity card which is issued in many countries, including many European countries. The Department of Health and Social Security does not make anything like the same kind of security checks that are made in the issue of an identity card or even in this country in the issue of a passport. If the man has a job he can get a card.
The Department of Health and Social Security does not regard it as part of its job to carry out security checks of that

kind. I do not blame the Department of Health and Social Security. The issue is much wider than that. It has direct relevance to the success of the new unit. Traditionally Britain's control system has put its emphasis on control at the port of entry, at the seaport or the airport. We have never followed the European system of internal controls. But times have changed. We have joined the Common Market; we have joined Europe, and the borders are coming down. Free movement is to be encouraged. That is one of the reasons for the Common Market. A citizen of a Common Market country has the right to settle here in any event.
But there are others in Europe. There is an enormous army of foreign workers now in Europe. The extent of the problem was recently discussed fully, and I thought very well, in two articles in the Sunday Telegraph. The foreign workers in Europe make our immigration population look small. There are almost 6 million foreign labourers working in France and Germany. They come from Yugoslavia, Turkey and the Arab countries. They come to Western Europe to seek work and the prosperity of a Western European industrialised society. It may well be that none of these people will ever want to come to this country, but it does not make a great deal of sense to rely on the fact that that will be the position.
I mention that matter because it seems that we now have a rather curious control system. We have a situation which involves no internal checks. We place our reliance on port checks which are likely to have less relevance as the years go on. Not everybody is satisfied that the present situation, and certainly the way in which it has been applied over the last few years, leads to adequate control. Our new position in Europe indicates that the position might worsen. I ask my hon. and learned Friend, in the light of our new position, to examine the situation and to see whether the present controls that have served us well in the past are relevant as we go through the 1970s into the 1980s, whether they will be relevant as the Common Market expands and the interchange of its citizens continues.
These two units represent valuable advances. It should be recognised that


the Government have done a great deal to deal with crime. We have seen notable increases in police recruiting. We have seen increases in the probation service, and we have seen the Criminal Justice Act come into being. These two units will make their contribution in the fight against crime which the Government are pursuing. The emphasis that the Government have placed on fighting crime is altogether right because I believe—and I know that my hon. and learned Friend agrees with this—that the crime area is one of real public concern.

12.21 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr Mark Carlisle): My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) has drawn attention this evening, through the advantage of a debate on the Consolidated Fund, to the two new central intelligence units that have been set up by the police to deal with the problems of drugs and illegal immigration. As my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his speech, this is the first time that this matter has been raised on the Floor of the House and I am therefore grateful to him for giving me the opportunity of saying something about what I agree with my hon. Friend are important new ventures.
The House will be aware, and my hon. Friend reminded us just now, of the serious problems that we face on both these matters, particularly that of drugs. I do not want at this hour to give the House a great many statistics, but I think that one or two figures clearly indicate the nature of the drug problem.
If we consider first the hard, addictive drugs and look at the numbers of those drug addicts coming to the notice of the Home Office during any year, we find that in 1960 that figure was 437; in 1967 it had grown to 1,729; and by 1969 it had grown to 2,881—a substantial, indeed one might say massive, increase over the decade of the 'sixties. Happily, the 1970 and 1971 figures have shown no increase on the 1969 figure.
As my hon. Friend said, it is particularly a youth problem. The increase is accounted for very largely by the increase in addicts under 34 years of age. In 1969, those under 20 accounted for just over one-quarter of the total addicts, while those between 20 and 34 made up

more than half, and the overwhelming majority are addicted to heroin or methadone. The only encouraging figure that I can give my hon. Friend on addiction is that in 1970 and 1971 the number of addicts coming to the knowledge of the Home Office slightly dropped. We have the encouraging situation also that whereas in 1969 those under the age of 20 accounted for a quarter of all the addicts coming to the notice of the Home Office in this country, by 1971 those under 20 represented only one-eighth of a similar total.
But, as my hon. Friend said, it is not only a question of addiction to heroin and drugs of that nature. The percentage increase in the number of convictions for offences involving the use and possession of cannabis is more dramatic still. In 1967 there were 2,393 such cases. By 1971 the figure had grown to 9,219. We should do nothing to undermine awareness that we face a serious drug problem.

Mr. Fowler: The figure for cannabis, the increase to over 9,000, is rather alarming. Did the rate of increase continue to accelerate in 1972, or is the number levelling out?

Mr. Carlisle: The 1971 figures are the most recent figures for a complete year that we could yet have. I shall write to my hon. Friend and give him any statistics that I can about 1972, although it will be some months before we are in a position to give the picture for the whole year.
I turn to the question of illegal immigration. The number of offences is nowhere near as massive, but the fact remains that between the passage of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 and 31st December last year 74 cases were brought before the courts, involving 307 illegal immigrants. Those figures are not necessarily reliable as showing the size of the problem. It is of the very nature of illegal immigration that its size can never be adequately predicted, because those who are successful in illegally entering the country do not come within the figure.
We have strengthened the penalities by creating a new offence under the 1971 Immigration Act of assisting illegal immigration, which is punishable on conviction on indictment by up to seven


years' imprisonment. We have empowered the courts in certain circumstances to order the confiscation of vehicles, ships or aircraft used for illegal immigration.
It is, therefore, against that background of the numbers involved in drug offences and the serious nature of offences of assisting illegal immigration that one must look at the proposal to set up these two new central intelligence units. While we have done what we can by legislation, it is vital that we do all we can also to see that the law is effectively enforced.
It is of the nature of these problems that they know no simple geographical boundaries. Drug trafficking spans the boundaries of different police areas and, as my hon. Friend reminded us, it spans national boundaries. Moreover, it involves more than one enforcement agency. In combating the drug problem, we look not only to the police but to the Customs and Excise and the inspectors of the Home Office drugs branch. In dealing with illegal immigration, one has the involvement of the immigration service and of the police.
With a number of enforcement agencies at work, it is vital to co-ordinate and direct their efforts to ensure that time and energy are not wasted by duplication and faulty communication, which can operate only to the advantage of the drug trafficker or the organiser of illegal immigration.
All this points to the need for much closer co-operation between the agencies involved and for effective pooling of information. That is the purpose of these new units. Adequate intelligence has always been the life-blood of successful police work. But however good and comprehensive the information gleaned may be, it is of little value unless it can be sent out quickly to those who need it. As I have said, drug trafficking and illegal immigration offences often involve movements over considerable distances, spanning various areas and even national frontiers. Therefore, the need is for a central point the purpose to which is to collect, to collate and to disseminate the information about known or suspected offenders.
It was the decision of the chief officers of police that, to meet these various needs, central intelligence units should be set up.

It was agreed that the units should be based in London, in the area of the Metropolitan Police Force, but with half the officers in the units drawn from forces outside the Metropolitan force. This will have the advantage of bringing in officers who have first-hand experience of problems in other parts of the country. They will have an appreciation of the special features of enforcement work in different areas, including Scotland.
Her Majesty's Customs and Excise will have an officer working in the drugs unit, and the Home Office drugs and immigration branches will be closely associated in the work of the units.
My hon. Friend asked me to say something about the size of these units. The drugs unit will be under the command of a detective chief superintendent of the Metropolitan Police. His second-in-command will be a detective superindent from another force, The remaining police staff will consist in the first place of a detective chief inspector and two detective inspectors from the Metropolitan Police and four detective inspectors from other forces. It is clear from that, I think, that it will not have an executive arm as such. Its aim is to collate and disseminate information on the movement of people suspected in these matters.
I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend said about the case for a regional drug squad. As he probably knows, most of the police forces already have their own drug squads and it is to them that the information collected by the central intelligence unit can be fed. The regional crime squads were set up to combat serious crime. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend say that he believed that they had been successful. Undoubtedly serious drug trafficking would come within the ambit of serious crime and therefore within the ambit of the regional crime squads. But I shall certainly consider whether there is room for the idea he put forward for a drug unit within the regional crime squads.
My hon. Friend then asked what would be the relationship with Interpol. The units are still in their early days. Their formation was announced only last October but I can confirm that the international aspects of drug trafficking and the organisation of illegal immigration will not be overlooked. It is clear that


people involved in those criminal activities are operating on an increasingly large scale across national frontiers, and the units will be responsible for fostering the necessary links through Interpol with enforcement agencies in other countries.
My hon. Friend asked what part the units would play in the education, particularly of young people, in the dangers of drugs. I have no doubt that the information collected by the central unit will be of value. But my immediate reaction is to say that the actual lecturing on the dangers should be done by the drugs squads of the forces in their respective geographical areas.
I listened with interest to what my hon. Friend said about the need for the Home Office to examine carefully its traditional practice of control of illegal immigration at the points of entry to see whether it is adequate in the present international situation. We shall look at that. But in both these areas the units will be an essential element in the fight against trafficking, whether in drugs or in human beings. The Government are determined that the police and the other enforcement agencies involved shall have the help they so badly need. The cost will not be negligible, but the cost in terms of human suffering if the problems are tackled inadequately will be incomparably greater. The announcement of the new units was made on 26th October. They are now being set up. They have a skeleton staff in post from the Metropolitan Police.
Applications have now been invited from provincial police forces for posts in these units and I am glad that there has been a most encouraging response. The choice of people from provincial forces to take up posts in the units will be made in the course of the next month and the units will be brought progressively up to full strength. What I said about the strength of the units concerns only the original strength as envisaged, but their future development will be kept under close review both to make sure that they are making an effective contribution and also to ensure that the level of staffing is adequate. We regard these units as a most promising development in enforcement work, and the Home Secretary and I share the hope expressed by chief officers of police that the units will make

a really significant contribution in these difficult problems.
I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to refer to these units by raising this matter tonight. I have given him all the information I can give at the moment and, as they develop further, I am sure that there will be more information coming forward that I can give him.

Orders of the Day — YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE

12.41 a.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: The object in raising this subject is to extract from the Minister a progress report on the environmental and employment improvements in Yorkshire and Humberside. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the debate will try to deal with it from a Yorkshire regional viewpoint. I shall try not to digress, but that may be necessary for the purposes of analogy or to emphasise a point.
The House will see that there is a collection of Supplementary Estimates—Class VI, Vote 5, Subheads C, D and E; Vote 12, Subheads B and E; and Vote 16. Subhead A.6—all of which are in the province of the Department of the Environment dealing with rents of unforeseen hirings, which according to the Vote necessitate an increase of £1,350,000; increased costs and additional requirements of building and engineering services, showing another increase of £2 million; payments to river authorities for water abstraction, an increase of £180,000—the total is now over £16 million; infrastructure grants, which have increased by over £4 million and now total £25 million; and transportation studies, the cost of which has nearly doubled and is now £476,899, an increase of £203,899. With such a large percentage increase, the policy may have changed and, therefore, this item of the Supplementary Estimates might be more widely debated.
Within these sums of money I am particularly concerned with the Yorkshire and Humberside share. I should like to know from the Minister what is in it for Yorkshire. First, unforeseen hirings: where are they to be and for whom? The sum of £1,350,000 for unforeseen


hirings is almost like a blind request—cash in hand just in case. Looming large in my mind is the Hardman Report and the possibility of its proposals being carried out, involving the dispersal from London and Whitehall of 60,000 civil servants to the regions. I am particularly concerned that if that is accepted Yorkshire and Humberside should not be overlooked. The increase in hirings might be explained by the fact that many more civil servants might have to be catered for in hirings outside London in the year ahead. There is an urgent need for more Whitehall Departments to be dispersed into the regions and Yorkshire makes its claim to be recognised. I hope that in explaining the reasons for this increase in the estimate the Minister can indicate the extent to which Yorkshire will benefit. The region is already starved of service employment and any switch from Whitehall to Yorkshire of Civil Service Departments could provide a fillip to employment and a regeneration of activity in our region.
I raise a similar query with regard to the increased costs and additional requirements of building and engineering services. Some £32,800,000 is being asked for, an increase of £2 million. I ask, therefore, for what buildings, and where, is the £2 million increase in the Estimates to be spent on additional requirements?
I hope that this might be allied with the estimate of unforeseen hirings, movements of Civil Service Departments out of London into the regions and provision being made for new buildings to accommodate them. If this is so, I ask that Yorkshire must be recognised as this Whitehall shake-out begins. The Estimates to which I have referred may bear no relevance to the point I have made, but the Minister at least has been given notice that Yorkshire and Humberside intends to fight for its share of movable service industry once it begins to accelerate northwards.
I turn to Class VI, Vote 5, Subhead E, and particularly to the payments to river authorities for water abstraction, now totalling more than £16 million. I should like to know to what extent within Yorkshire and Humberside industries, whether nationalised or private, or

other bodies or Government Departments are abstracting water from the rivers for industrial use and which rivers are involved.
More particularly, I should like to know what requirements or understandings are sought from those users of the Yorkshire rivers and waterways that, having taken the water from what was initially a clean, pollution-free river, their final discharge after industrial use is not contributing to increased pollution and to our dirty rivers with poisonous chemicals and so on. These rivers and waterways are becoming more precious with the increasing sport of angling, the developing stretches of cruiseways and the greater realisation of their potential for commercial traffic and trade.
It would be helpful, therefore, to know which industries or Government Departments and rivers in Yorkshire and Humberside are involved in this estimate of about £16½ million. It would also provide us with a guide so that we can periodically check whether any of these industries or Government Departments are Yorkshire's river poisoners.
An interesting estimate is Vote 12, Subhead B. A figure of £25 million is being sought for infrastructure grants, an increase of over £4 million, and the Vote says that this is due to the increased cost of several major schemes. The Minister ought to tell us what are those schemes, but, above all, whether any of them are in Yorkshire.
I am concerned about the rundown in our textile towns, our old coal-mining villages and our outdated and closed steel plants, leaving behind an appalling legacy of the old industrial infrastructures which necessitates much finance and rapid redevelopment to stop them from becoming shocking permanent monuments of grime and industrial dereliction.
I hope that within these Estimates the Under-Secretary can give me an example of how the infrastructure grants are helping to obliterate those industrial scars. Particularly he might say whether any studies are taking place to help Yorkshire in its desire to clean up its industrial sectors.
In the Vote on transportation studies it is stated that new studies are being


commissioned more rapidly than was foreseen. The cost is £476,899—an increase of £203,899. Such a large percentage increase might indicate a change of policy. That should be explained.
What transportation studies are being or have been commissioned in Yorkshire and Humberside? I ask the Minister, first, whether one of the studies covers the problem that might flow from the building of the Humber Bridge, which is going ahead and is due to open in 1976. I question whether any studies are being made relating to the growing road networks opening up the Humberside area as a result of the building of the new bridge. What estimates are being made of the likely impact on the region of the increase in communications, in terms of its effect on trade and jobs? Is one of the transportation studies to be commissioned concerned with the possible growth in trade and employment prospects as a result of the British Waterways proposals now before the Minister to widen and deepen the Sheffield-South Yorkshire waterway. The Minister must be aware of the fact that if this were one it could cause many industries along the waterway to flourish right through the heartland of Yorkshire and Humberside, but particularly it opens up a vast sector of the county with a direct waterway link to the Continent and the Common Market.
Thirdly, I have been perturbed and concerned for some time about the movement of people from the county because of the lack of good road communications. Within the transportation studies, what study is taking place of good road communications, linking the old mining villages with a view to speeding up travel in the defined travel-to-work areas? The Yorkshire coalfield is not really one employment area; it is 50 miles across from east to west and 50 miles from north to south. The east-west connections are not so good and are slow. The area portrays a picture of a series of intermittently connected mining villages. If the people in this area have to travel, travel becomes a burden. They then consider moving, but instead of moving within their own area, having taken the decision to uproot themselves they decide to emigrate from the county altogether, usually to the south. This is the single most important factor in our emigration

problem, and it is increasing. I hope that we shall have a transportation study of this problem.
Finally, I question Vote 16, Subhead A6, which deal with grants for reclamation of derelict land—a total of £14,862,000, which represents a requested increase of £10,800,000. First, I concede to the Government that Operation Eyesore—land reclamation schemes and the clearance of dereliction—is succeeding, with pleasing environmental results, but I ask where all the money is being spent. How much is being spent in Yorkshire and Humberside? What schemes of note have been tackled? To what extent are local authorities and national industries co-operating? How are we really comparing with the other regions in the drive for a cleaner and healthier Britain, and what sort of impact is this environmental drive having on employment prospects in our region?
I ask whether, within this Estimate, any money is being earmarked to hold the West Riding County Council Land Reclamation Unit together and use it as a team, with its expertise, to plan the clean-up of the county. It consists of 15 specialists with support staffs, who did magnificent work in Yorkshire even before the increased grants were available.
I ask what the Minister is doing to shatter the complacency of British Railways. They are not playing their part, with disused stations left derelict and abandoned—eyesores pitting the countryside. Local authorities have great difficulties getting decisions from them on planning and land clearance. British Railways headquarters is not responding fast enough, in keeping with the urgency of the problem. I hope that the Minister in his drive to clean up the county and the nation is urging British Railways in particular—and other nationalised industries—to co-operate more readily with the local authorities.
The National Coal Board is better, but only a little. A substantial number of spoil heaps—muck stacks we call them in Yorkshire—are not subject to planning controls. The board is deemed to have planning control over them. This is slowing down muck stack clearance. The board even holds to ransom those who wish to erase these eyesores by asking


ridiculous prices for the muck stack content. I am also perturbed that in some areas the board is tending to hog land around the perimeter of these spoil heaps, thus hindering the local authorities in spreading the stack properly and making it blend more amenably into the landscape. The grants for reclamation of derelict land can be jeopardised if this sort of action continues.
Turning to derelict land grants, in my own town of Barnsley the derelict land reclamation programme looks good. The projects are listed up to 1975. Nearly all involve major expenditure on muck stacks, naturally enough in a coal-mining area. The aim is that 224 acres should be cleared by 1980. Under Operation Eyesore in Barnsley and district 100 projects are in the pipeline, many of them small items such as cleaning buildings. A sum of £193,000 has been earmarked, so that the town is indeed having a facelift.
I hope that the Minister can reveal how the Yorkshire industrial towns are taking advantage of the £14,800,000 in Government grants. Yorkshire and Humberside is keen to solve its environmental and unemployment problems. Within this catalogue of Votes dealing with infrastructure grants, transportation studies and moneys earmarked for reclamation of derelict land, some scope is being provided to deal with both. I only hope that the Minister can tell us that Yorkshire and Humberside are taking advantage of these offers, that they are forging ahead to enliven and brighten the country and that the prospects for a clean, healthy and full-employment environment are now a distinct possibility.

12.58 a.m.

Mr. Joseph Harper: My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has covered the problems of the Yorkshire and Humberside region on a broad canvas in a comprehensive fashion. In contrast, I want to base my speech on constituency problems, under the subheads of the respective Votes in the Supplementary Estimates.
The first is subhead D of Class VI, Vote 5, in which there is an addition of £2 million to the sum of £32,880,000 for building and engineering services and increased costs and additional requirements.

It has passed through my mind that the Government might give some thought to transferring the offices of the National Coal Board from Hobart House in the south-west of London to Doncaster and the heart of the coalfield. I asked about this in the Yorkshire debate on 19th June last year. If this were done it would contribute to the efficiency of the administration of the board and would give the people working in the industry the feeling that the board was part of them. I make this plea again and wonder whether it has crossed the Minister's mind.
My right hon. Friend has drawn attention to subhead E dealing with gas, electricity and certain telecommunications and the abstraction of water We know that water is taken from the rivers and that, after use, it is put back. In the case of power stations, I am advised that the water is cleaner when it is put back into the rivers than it is when it is taken out. Rigid rules of procedure must be followed. Unfortunately, the same rules are not imposed on manufacturing industries.
My constituency point in this regard is one which the Minister personally has dealt with on previous occasions in debate and in answer to Parliamentary Questions. It concerns the detergents which are poured into the river upstream of my constituency. They cause a great deal of foaming on the river with which the borough of Castleford has to try to deal. This matter has become a pretty hardy annual.
Before we approve this Supplementary Estimate of £180,000, part of which might go to helping to deal with the problem, I hope that the Minister will answer two questions, since this subhead deals with payments to river authorities for water abstraction.
First, has the Minister considered whether the £180,000, in addition to the original Supply Estimate, is enough to enable the river authority to deal comprehensively with this problem? Alternatively, within this Estimate is the appropriate river authority able to give financial assistance to the Castleford borough council so that it can deal with the problem? The burden falls upon local people, and it is not of Castleford's making. Someone else has created it, but Castleford has to bear most of the financial


responsibility for clearing the foam. The borough council has never been able to understand why local ratepayers should have to shoulder the cost indefinitely, despite numerous meetings with those responsible and with Ministry officials. I hope that the Minister will have something new to say in reply, and I trust that a positive approach is to be made to solving the problem.
Subhead B of Vote 12 deals with infrastructure. The Supplementary Estimate in this case is £4,050,000, making a total of £25,050,000. What is Yorkshire likely to get out of it? What major schemes are planned? What are the employment prospects, which depend to a large extent on infrastructure? What will be the effect on travel in the area, bearing in mind that many men and women have to travel inordinate distances to get to work and earn a living?
What of transport studies, where a Supplementary Estimate of £203,899 brings the total to £476,849? The question is a difficult one, and perhaps it is not fair to ask the Minister, but I must ask it because it is a constituency point. Does he know whether the West Riding County Council has made a recent study of the transport situation as it affects my constituency of Pontefract and Castleford?
What effect will the M62 have when it is opened, which is expected to be in 12 months, on the Wakefield-Snaith Road? For example, will the proposed road on the Featherstone urban district council's town map be needed? In this day and age when hon. Members on both sides of the House ask Ministers for more and more roads, it is unusual for anyone to ask for a road to be taken out. It may be that such a proposal would receive loud cheers if the debate were better attended than it is. However, we cannot get the Featherstone council or the West Riding County Council to move on this one. We want the road taken out because when the M62 ploughs through to Ferrybridge and eventually right through to Hull there will be no need for the proposed new road. The proposal is sterilising valuable industrial land and preventing industry from coming to Featherstone. It also prevents us from cleaning up properly and thereby giving a much-needed boost for the environment of that town.
Several industries have made inquiries about going there, and have learned that a road is to go through. This has earned the nickname of "the ghost road". The Press was full of it some years ago, saying that it was a ghost road about which no one knew anything. Were I a betting man, I would bet that the road will never be built. However, in order to get on with cleaning up and attracting industry to this spot, we want the road removed from the town map or at least built.
My final point is about dereliction, under Vote 16, Subhead A6. Here there has also been a vast increase of nearly £11 million. The figure has risen from £4 million to about £14 million. Along with the North-West, in Lancashire, on the wrong side of the Pennines, this has affected our counties more than anywhere else.
Reference has been made to dirt tips. As the Under-Secretary knows, we call them muck stacks. One of the best ways of treating this kind of dereliction and reclamation is to put the stuff in the motorways and the other suitable places we can find. There are 450 tips in the Yorkshire coalfield. Some are as high as the Andes. Of those tips, 185 are closed tips, so nothing would prevent us from dealing with them immediately, and another 90 tips are being dealt with. The other 200 tips are live tips on to which dirt is still being tipped. They present a more difficult problem.
The Minister can do something to help in the disposal of these muck stacks by stopping borrow pit working. A borrow pit is a little pit near a road, be it the M1, M62 or A1, from which material is transported out of a field 200 or 300 yards to the road being built. This results in double dereliction. It poses the question why we create dereliction and try at the same time to solve it. It is like spitting in the wind; one gets it back. It is like treading a moving staircase in the opposite direction.
One of the reasons why these muck stacks are not being moved fast enough is these borrow pits. The Minister may ask how it is that the muck stacks are not being moved at the required rate, and why they cannot compete. The short answer is that they cannot compete because it is unfair competition. The borrow pits are dug out of little fields at the side of the road being built.
There is also the advantage of using unlicensed vehicles. They are not taxed or rated. That used to be the case with the muck stacks until someone had the bright idea that these tips should be rated in order to provide some revenue for the local authorities. The matter went as far as the House of Lords, and the decision in the other place was that rates had to be paid on tips. This made some tips uncompetitive. But if we stopped borrow pit working, the dirt from the muck stacks would be used in a much better fashion.
The National Coal Board is doing research into lightweight aggregates. There is a great shortage of these in Yorkshire, because the tips cannot provide every sort of filling, although there has been quite a lot of research into this. Dereliction and the general untidiness of some of the areas of the county discourage industry from coming to the place. It is only when we pay more attention and give more help to the infrastructure, dereliction, transportation and other subjects covered by these Supplementary Estimates that the full potential of the region will at last be realised.

1.10 a.m.

Mr. James Johnson: No civilised back bencher at this hour of the morning makes a long speech. On the other hand, one seizes one's chances as a constituency Member unashamedly to represent one's constituency's interests, and I am sure the Minister will listen carefully.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) is a Yorkshire-man, and he spoke of Yorkshire often, but also of Humberside. I would plead with the Minister to bear Humberside in mind and to remember that it also is a part of Yorkshire. As a visitor there he will well know exactly where are the docks that I shall mention, and the other matters involved in the transportation studies mentioned in Class VI of the Votes.
Before I come to that context I want to echo what has been said already and commend to the Minister what he knows well, that in East Yorkshire we should have some of the 60,000 civil servants going north. On the west side of the country, Bootle has been nicknamed the

Whitehall of the North, and I do not see why we should not have two White-halls in the north, one in Lancashire, as there is, and another in Yorkshire.
So Hull makes a plea for having civil servants from more Departments living on Humberside. It has a delightful climate. East Yorkshire bears comparison with East Anglia. The Minister, as a farmer, will know that East Yorkshire bears comparison with any part of East Anglia, and has the same type of climate and the same type of farming. So we have a claim to having some Departments there. We can attract people out of London to the East Yorkshire coast. It is important because emigration from our part of the world is a serious matter; we are losing our young people.
Mention has also been made of coordination between British Rail and the local authorities. The Minister knows that we have been scared time and time again by statements by colleagues of his about certain contingency planning and about our rail network being cut down—as we have been told, to some 8,000 or 9,000 miles. I hope the Minister will pay attention to this and heed the feelings of people in East Yorkshire and on Humberside and the need to safeguard our railways, particularly from Hull to Scarborough.
I come now specifically to Class VI, Vote 12, and transportation studies, about which we are told that
New studies are being commissioned more rapidly than was foreseen.
The notes speak of
Advances in respect of contributions towards the cost of transportation studies undertaken by local authorities …".
In Hull we have done a number of these studies, and I am wondering whether any of them have been conidered for inclusion under that heading.
I have here the annual report for 1972 of the deputy chief executive officer for community planning in Kingston upon Hull, who states what we all know, that the Government have shown some imagination in matters like the Humber Bridge and the M18 and M62, without which we would be, as it were, almost eyeless in Gaza, because no port can for long exist, let alone wax larger, without adequate communications. I hope that our entry into the EEC will in no way


delay the signing of the contracts. The Minister knows that entry means widening our scope in the United Kingdom and on the Continent, so I hope there will he no delay in building the bridge.
Road proposals within the city are of vital importance to us. The commercial docks are on the east side of the city, and goods have to be carried to the A1 and the M1 on the west side. On the west side there are the fish docks, and on the east side there are the cargo docks. We vitally need a docks road parallel to the fish docks running to the big cargo docks in the east. The city engineer has done studies on such a road. Will the Minister convey to his colleagues the need for a decision on this matter?
Until a decision is made many firms with well-known names—Birdseye and Findus—and small family firms like Glenton cannot plan ahead for extension. They need to know if and when certain buildings will be demolished and exactly the line of the new docks road. I ask the Minister to pay special attention to this. It is vital to be able to move goods from East Hull to West Hull without going through the centre of the city. Goods that are unloaded in the cargo docks on the east side have to go through the centre of the city to get to the freight terminal on the west side.
Whether the transportation studies are undertaken by the city or by the Department of the Environment, they must be speedily implemented for the sake of Hull, the third port of the United Kingdom.
A point of less importance concerns the working party study on commercial vehicle parking. We know the findings, but we do not know how they affect Hull. Each night about 600 commercial vehicles are parked in Hull. We need a secure parking place and adequate overnight accommodation for the drivers. We should like to know what is happening about commercial vehicle parking in Hull and whether there will be a network of secure parks throughout the United Kingdom.
I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to the vital importance of the docks road on which the city has made a study. Proposals have been made to

him, and I hope that he will get on with them and let us know what is happening.

1.20 a.m.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: I support what has been said so far in this debate, and I wish to emphasise the points which have been made about dereliction. The emphasis has been on the Yorkshire Ridings and the rural mining areas. I appreciate the problems in those areas, but we should also recognise the serious difficulties in conurbation areas, such as Leeds, particularly in my constituency, where dereliction can take several forms. One of the major problems facing local authorities is in clearing old commercial and business properties which are now empty, or in trying to make them safe. Many of these old properties attract vandals, itinerants and vermin, and life can be made impossible for those who reside in such areas. Many of these problems are rife in my constituency, and the local authorities are doing their utmost to give assistance and encouragement in clearance matters, and they in turn would welcome Government help.
I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) singled out British Rail for criticism. Although some of his criticisms were justified, the difficulties which he outlined should not all be laid at the door of British Rail. I know from my experience in working in the estates department of British Rail that many difficulties and delays arose because local authorities were hesitant in completing sale transactions largely because of their inability to provide finance at the right time. But British Rail were only acting under instructions from this House that in the sale of British Rail property and land first options should be given to local authorities. Therefore, the railways were compelled to negotiate with local authorities and often ran into difficulties.

Mr. James Johnson: We have difficulty in building new houses in West Hull because we have so little land. British Rail often has land available formerly used for sidings, and so on, but local authorities sometimes take a great deal of time to deal with these matters. They may meet one day and then not meet again for another six months.

Mr. Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friend that in seeking to dispose of derelict land British Rail is often handicapped by delays in trying to obtain planning permission from the local authority. However, we must keep the matter in perspective since a number of factors are involved.
I am delighted that attempts are being made to commission transport studies more rapidly. At certain places in my constituency inner ring roads pass within yards of people's homes. Those same people have now been informed that the next phase will bring other roads close to their homes from the other side of the development. This is giving some cause for concern. The more rapidly we can deal with this situation and carefully analyse the problems which arise from the new developments that are required the better.
I hope that in the course of these transportation studies careful thought will be given to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) about British Rail. One of the greatest difficulties confronting Yorkshire—I do not mean Leeds particularly, but the West Riding—is the tremendous increase in the volume of traffic now passing through that area. Arising from this is the question whether there should be a Pudsey/Dishforth motorway link. I am sure that the Minister will be reasonably, if not fully, aware of this situation. This problem occurs in many areas because of the closure of the British Rail system. The stations and lines have completely disappeared. I am pleased to advise my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley that there is no dereliction. In fact, it is difficult to appreciate that stations existed in some places. We are now feeling the long-term effects of the removal of the railway system. I am sure that in the years ahead, with the tremendous increase in the volume of motorised traffic, we shall regret even more that many stations have been closed. In the transportation studies we should try to plan ahead. We should anticipate the developments which will occur with a view not to reducing but to increasing the railways system.
In view of the points which have been made in the speeches by my right hon. and hon. Friends and the lateness of the hour I shall not keep the House any longer. I hope that the Minister will take serious note of what has been said. I am sure that he will.

1.27 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): With the leave of the House I will attempt to reply to this very wide-ranging debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and his hon. Friends on having been able to insinuate, under the rather narrow headings before us, an extremely wide-ranging and interesting debate about the environment, in the widest sense of the word, in South Yorkshire. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it has been a debate about Yorkshire mainly by Yorkshire men. He suggested that it would allow me in reply to give a progress report on developments in the environmental and economic sphere which are broadly touched upon, as I must agree, in the Votes to which he referred.
My Department, having a measure of responsibility for regional policy, has been pleased to see the progress that has begun and is accelerating since the whole region was declared an intermediate area. Before 1972 only the Yorkshire coalfield, including the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, had intermediate area status. But from March 1972 the whole region has had this status, from which many additional benefits have flowed: training courses, grants under the Industry Act, loans, interest relief grants, tax allowances on machinery, plant and industrial buildings, advance factories, removal grants, free fares for key workers, and specifically on the environmental front intermediate area status has brought substantial improvement under the derelict land clearance programme of Operation Eyesore.
On the employment front, the programme recently announced by my right hon. Friend includes eight advance factories for the Yorkshire and Humberside region with a total of 100,000 sq. ft. Of the five advance factories which had previously been authorised for the Yorkshire coalfield area, four have already


been built, two of which have been let, and the fifth is in an advanced stage of construction.
I think that more needs to be done. There is a large legacy from the past of industrial obsolescence. Nevertheless, it is instructive that the unemployment figures are now coming down quite quickly, and I sense when I go to that area that the economic momentum is accelerating.
There is an intimate connection, as the right hon. Gentleman implied, between improved environment and the attraction to industry to go there. It used to be that industry destroyed the environment. Now we have reached a stage when only if there is an improving environment for people to live in can one attract industry to establish itself in an area such as South Yorkshire.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the proposed increase of £1·35 million for rents for Government accommodation. I must tell him that that represents less than an additional 3 per cent. to the original provision. It covers a number of unforeseen additional requirements of a perfectly normal kind during the remainder of the financial year. It covers about a dozen fairly small hirings for various clients of central Government—the higher courts and the Professional and Executive Registry at the Department of Employment. The House will be interested to learn that this rent provision includes slightly more money for the rent assessment panel. That is the area which is covered by this particular increase. It is, I think, perfectly normal.
The right hon. Gentleman rather ingeniously related the dispersal of civil servants and additional hirings with the fact that Sir Henry Hardman had completed his report and that Yorkshire might get a lot more Government offices. The report by Sir Henry Hardman will, I understand, shortly be received, and decisions will be announced about it in the early summer. I cannot give any assurance at this stage. That is a matter for the Civil Service Department. I cannot give any assurance about how many civil servants will be dispersed or precisely where they will go. However, the claims of Yorkshire and Humberside, which have been put forward eloquently tonight, will he considered along with the other regions' claims.
Several hon. Members have indicated that the nationalised industries might also remove some of their staff from the London and South-Eastern area to the North. It was suggested that Hobart Place was not necessarily the most natural environment for the National Coal Board. Of course, that is a matter for the coal board. The Government cannot, and would not wish to, instruct the chairman of the coal board to do anything other than he felt was right within his managerial competence. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will expect all the nationalised industries to have regard to the wish of the Government and of the House that there should be a dispersal of both civil servants and at least any clerical employees of the nationalised industries to the regions.
I am aware, as no doubt is the right hon. Gentleman, of the letter recently sent to my right hon. Friend by the Chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council, in which he eloquently argued the point in respect of the nationalised industries. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of what has been said by both the chairman and hon. Members here tonight.
On Class VI, 5, the right hon. Gentleman and a number of his hon. Friends managed to get in the question of river pollution under the listing of additional expenditure for fuel and other items for Government premises. This subhead has nothing to do with abstractions for industrial purposes. The purpose of this estimate, which increases by only 1 per cent. the current estimate, is to cover the normal fuel requirements of Government premises; that is to say, gas, oil, solid fuel and electricity. It makes provision for any payment that may be made for water which river authorities may draw from a river for the domestic purposes of those premises.
I understand that the amount of water that is used for domestic purposes in these Government offices is insignificant. Indeed, I suppose it to be used only for making tea or for the staff to wash their hands. I must, therefore, ask the House to excuse me if under this heading I do not deal with the whole issue of cleaning the Yorkshire rivers.
The right hon. Gentleman was concerned about whether any polluting discharges might be going into the Yorkshire rivers from Government offices. My right hon. Friend and I would be most disturbed if that were to be the case. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to know that the Government have said that they expect all those who administer Crown property to observe the conditions required by river and sewerage authorities of similar premises occupied by local authorities or industry. If there is any evidence that Crown property is not observing these conditions the Secretary of State will take action to see that the requirements are met. If the right hon. Gentleman has any evidence of Yorkshire rivers being poisoned by Government Departments, I wish that he would provide it. I do not believe that there is any evidence of that.
The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) and I have on a number of occasions debated the problem of foam in Castleford. I can only say that I cannot deal with that problem under this subhead which provides the ability to pay for water used to wash people's hands in a few Government offices in the rest of the country.
On Class VI, 12, transport studies, again these are primarily studies of the problem of urban transportation, a problem which I believe needs increasing attention. They do not include studies for the Humber Bridge and the associated road network. That is covered elsewhere, but the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) is right when he says that access to the port of Hull needs to be improved, if only to benefit the increasing trade with Europe.
I understand that priority is being given to the improvement of access roads, and some of the programmes which have been accelerated—and which I believe will help the hon. Gentleman—include access to Hull via the M62-A63 from Merseyside and the M18 from the Midlands. Work is proceeding on the new M180 to connect with the Humber Bridge, and when all this work is completed—and I hope that it will be on schedule—Yorkshire and Humberside will have one of the finest road networks in any region.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Pontefract about what he regards as the surplus road proposal in the Featherstone area which, he said, was sterilising industrial land. I do not believe that this is for my Department. In the first instance it is for the county council. It does not come under this subhead, but I am sure that the new metropolitan county, when it comes to consider all its road schemes, will, if it is wise, have regard to what the hon. Gentleman has said tonight.

Mr. James Johnson: I thank the Minister for his helpful and cogent words about the future network to the west of the city of Hull. But is he saying that I might well have been gainfully employed in discussing under the subhead pedestrian precincts in the centre of the city?

Mr. Griffiths: No. The urban studies touched upon here mainly concern, in the Yorkshire area, the Sheffield-Rotherham transportation study, to which I have paid a great deal of attention since I have become involved in the urban studies that we are pursuing. This is a large-scale study of the whole Sheffield-Rotherham transportation pattern. The estimated cost is £515,000 over three years, of which my Department is meeting half.
The reason for the substantial increase that the right hon. Gentleman noticed is that we are now completing the structure plans of many of the regions, and this of itself has given a much greater impetus to transportation studies generally. It has meant that we have been able to start additional studies, which generate in turn the need for the additional expenditure under the subhead.
I should say something about derelict land. I was delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman's generous tribute to his local authorities, in that they are now in the Yorkshire area making rapid and very pleasing progress in the reclamation of derelict land. At the end of 1971 the region had just under 14,000 acres of derelict land, of which 10,500 were considered to justify reclamation. In 1970 850 acres were reclaimed, which was four times as much as in the previous year. There was a slight fall in the number of completed schemes in 1971, but a great


deal of new work is now in the pipeline, and I am advised that in 1972—the figures are not yet all to hand—the authorities expect that more than a thousand acres will have been reclaimed by all the agencies. The figures show that there is gathering momentum.
There is no better way of improving the living environment for people than to get rid of some of the unsightly areas of derelict land. I and Labour Members know, from having grown up among it, that it not only depresses those who must live in it but deters industry from going to a region.
On Operation Eyesore there is a success story to tell. It was announced in February 1972 as a supplementary short-term boost to the assisted areas, aimed at the more local pieces of dereliction not covered by the main derelict land clearance programme. It was also designed to give a short, sharp boost to help alleviate unemployment in the assisted areas. The scheme has been immensely popular. It has been widely welcomed and taken up by the local authorities. Up to the end of last December more than 10,000 Eyesore projects had been approved for grant in England, at a total cost of more than £23 million. In Yorkshire and Humberside no fewer than 2,800 separate Eyesore projects have been approved at a cost of over £6 million. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has seen all this progress in Barnsley. Sometimes the schemes are quite small, but they add to the environment.
I have seen what has been done in the Rotherham area. It certainly helps to produce a cleaner, brighter Yorkshire to have the cleaning of buildings, landscaping, planting of trees and the general tidying up of sites and buildings.
I take note of the points made about the nationalised industries and their part in both derelict land and Eyesore programmes. The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on his rather vivid phrase about British Rail showing on occasion a degree of shattering complacency. I noticed that his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen) rose to the defence of British Rail. But I hope that the Railways Board will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
The same goes for the National Coal Board. I derived much benefit from the description given by the hon. Member for Pontefract of the muck heaps, the 150 or more tips which could be more rapidly improved, and I noted also his observation that, very often, some of the land adjoining the tips at the bottom is not dealt with as rapidly as it might be. I shall bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries what the hon. Gentleman said about the use of borrow pits for material for road construction. I think that this is a matter on which the technical experts might well be able to answer better than I can.
We have had a wide-ranging debate within the limited ambit of the Supplementary Estimates. I hope that the House will accept that the provisions of this additional money is sensible in the circumstances.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND (OIL INDUSTRY)

1.46 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It there were any temptation to complain about starting a debate at a quarter to two in the morning on the subject of the North Sea, we should remember that whereas we are in relatively comfortable circumstances here in the House, those who are out on the rigs may be in a force 9 gale. At the outset of what I have to say, I pay a tribute to the men and managements who work on the rigs out in the rigours of the North Sea. Until one has been on a rig, even in fairly moderate conditions, one does not, I think, realise how tough the work is.
I have had an interest in this subject ever since I served on the Standing Committee on the Continental Shelf Bill in 1963. Perhaps one would have made rather different speeches then if it had been possible to foresee what we now see with hindsight. But hindsight is an advantage in life! My first comment is that the ministerial arrangement is a little odd. I am glad to see the Minister here, and I know that within his Fisheries Department there resides a tremendous amount of expertise. On the other hand, it is a bit odd that the oil industry, the major industrial event since the Industrial


Revolution for Scotland, should be the responsibility of one who has also to worry about pig prices, about the police and about a host of other matters.
The time has come to take a long hard look at the ministerial arrangements and to consider whether it is desirable to have some kind of commission to give an overall coherent strategy in these matters, and not least in the matter of harbour development, the subject of the debate tonight. What has prompted me to initiate this debate is a feeling that so many of the things we do are "itsybitsy". I want to know about the Government's strategy.
We had long, fairly detailed, and, on the whole, rather satisfactory discussions with BP about its terminal at Queens-ferry and Dalmeny. I shall not go into detail about that now. But the extraordinary feature which emerged after our talks with provosts, councillors and trade union officials, with the farmers who are to be dispossessed, and with Lady Rosebery, who is the land owner, was that we all felt the same—that the case which was put forward in a narrow context was probably very good, but the same kind of argument was going on along the Fife coast, possibly at Dundee, possibly in the Minister's own constituency at Montrose where developments are taking place, and all up the coast through Wick to Scapa and the Shetlands.
Are the Government happy that there is a coherent strategy? Are they happy that the international oil companies, which are to be the customers of the harbours, are not losing the Scottish Environment too much by competition among themselves, and should they not be required to fit into a coherent strategy? What is the strategy and who is in charge? Specifically, what is the brief given to the Scottish Development Advisory Group under Professor Nicol? What is its rôle exactly and what advice is being asked of the Economist Intelligence Unit? The Scottish Office Ministers responsible in this sphere have their share of problems. Shetland has asked for a provisional order and now we gather that in the last 24 hours Orkney has followed suit. For Caithness and Sutherland plans are being prepared separately. There is also the Cromarty

Firth Authority. I should have thought that any Minister in the Scottish Office must be a little worried about all the different authorities going off at tangents. I cannot believe that a series of uncoordinated provisional orders is the way to tackle the challenge of oil in the 1970s and 1980s.
Personally, I identify myself very much with what the Shetlanders are doing. Perhaps they have hit upon a Socialist way of solving their problems, and I say that without being too party political. Of course, a Parliamentary Commission to investigate any of the Shetland channels, such as Sullum Voe will cause delay. Indeed, some delay might be a good thing. I am not persuaded that we must do everything "as urgently and as quickly as possible," as the Secretary of State is fond of telling us. Specifically, I should like harbour dues to be used for the good of the whole population and not paid only to the harbour authority, for purely harbour development. There is a problem for the communities concerned in oil exploration and it may have hit Shetland first. Shetland is almost about to be over-run unless it does something. Unlike Orkney, time is not on its side. I should be interested to hear anything about the discussions with the Ministry of Defence about the Lyness Jetty at Scapa and to hear about the contractual relationship which the Government would like to have between the Ministry of Defence and the various private interests along the east coast of Scotland. What is the pattern to be?
The entire north shore of the Cromarty Firth will be established as an expanding service and manufacturing area. Easter Ross is expected to house 6,000 workers in the next 18 months. The director of education is on record as talking about the need for at least £4 million for school building in a short time. But is a Cromtary Firth Port Authority necessary and is it wise to have turned down the suggestion by the International Machine and Engineering Group for a petroleum services industry board? I understand that it was turned down basically on grounds of urgency, in that a PSIB might cause delay. Such a decision is open to severe criticism because some of us do not think that either the development or the research is likely to be done as it


should be within the framework of the Department of Trade and Industry.
Incidentally, I am not one of those who is prepared to criticise the Department's civil servants for being soft about oil. Any criticism that is made should be directed at politicians of both parties rather than to the civil servants because there is no evidence that the civil servants have been soft with the oil companies, as has often been said in the Press. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) is to raise the question of the IMEG Report in detail on Monday, so perhaps on Monday we will have an answer on this problem consequent to the rejection of certain IMEG proposals. The question of key industrial land bears directly on harbours. One thinks of the potential concentration around Sullum Voe in Shetland, and the question of servicing and processing facilities. Is the Scottish Office to grant free exercise of such powers to local authorities? The whole relationship to Onshore Investments Ltd. is, I think, a Scottish problem and not a local problem. Indeed the relationship between the Government, and any form of organisation which offers a complete land-finance package, of wharfage facilities, fabrication, and oil processing installations, is a matter of consequence. In passing, I must say how impressed I am by what is being done at Methil by Redpath Dorman Long and at Leith. Having asked about these installations, I must express the fear which is at the back of the minds of us all that the country we care about might look in 10 years' time like the coast of Louisiana. This is a real danger. It was in America that the first oil industrial revolution took place. One hopes that we may learn from the experience of Americans and do much better, avoiding their mistakes, but if we are to do better something must be done early and that means a coherent strategy now. Incidentally, I am aware that the discount flow rate is sensitive to the capital figure. I mention that because I do not want to be accused of ignoring a whole range of important factors in this argument.
I ask about the relationships between the Government and the P & O, my former employers and their subsidiaries in their project at Lerwick. I think that £1,800,000 is involved. Without being

impertinent and encroaching on questions relating to the Minister's constituency, I should be interested to hear of the kind of relationship he thinks should exist between the Government and Oil Services in Montrose. Will the whole pattern be that which obtains with the Dundee Harbour Trust?
I think this a proper point at which to ask again a question of which I have given notice about negotiations going on for the establishment of a median line in the North Sea/Atlantic which may have a bearing on the siting of major installations at Lerwick or elsewhere.
As one who took part in parliamentary discussions on Peterhead, I understand that the 1,500 foot quay, the 22 acres of reclaimed land and the general service berth on the south side of the harbour or refuge is going quite well, but there is a 15-year lease for oil industries. Perhaps this interesting debate provides an opportunity to comment on how this partnership experiment between public and private agencies is working out. I should have thought an interim report worth while for all of us who are concerned in these matters. From Peterhead to Boddam in another context I think that this is a regrettable project and I would have wished that it had been nuclear.
Specifically, however, I should like to know whether there has been a complaint from Site Preparations of Barrhead that it is being squeezed out by the public initiative of the Scottish Office. This seems to me to be the kind of argument on which we should have some comment because it may recur time and again.
I turn now to the Scottish position as a whole, including the West Coast and the concessions recently allocated in the Atlantic approaches to Orkney. I understand that in total at least 10,000 ft. of new quay space for service vessels will be required in the near future. I only ask whether public and private agencies are proving themselves capable of matching the tremendous pace being set at sea with adequate shore facilities. One thinks naturally of future developments at Stornoway, because part of the difficulty has been that this has come on us so suddenly that all of us can perhaps be accused of lack of foresight. I


do not pick out who have been interested for a long time and certainly as a member of the 1963 Standing Committee I feel as guilty as anyone and am not accusing others. Nevertheless, the fact is that from now on we have no excuse for not showing the kind of foresight that I should like to see, for instance, in relation to Stornoway in connection with the Western Approaches.
This is not the place to go into the detail about the merits, of the underwater evaluation Ministry of Defence centre at Raasay. Since, however, many countries use their forces for what one might call socio-economic purposes one would have thought that there could have been far more co-operation between the Ministry of Defence, which I am sure would welcome it, and the oil exploitation companies, particularly concerning deep water and the use of submersibles. I therefore ask the Ministers who have responsibility for oil development precisely what discussions have taken place with the Ministry of Defence in any of their projects.
I have undertaken to be brief. In shorthand, therefore, I come to a criticism. The Wolfson Foundation has generously given a large sum of money to the Heriot-Watt University. Why has not the Scottish Office seen fit to give a matching amount? It seems disappointing that considerably more Government funds have not been put into the whole question of submarine research and underwater research. I simply say in passing that the French are spending not less than £50 million a year on this, and I am not just talking of the dramatic, well-publicised work of Cousteau and others. They have a whole programme. It seems strange that they should have a programme and that we, who are at least for the moment better endowed, are being so parsimonious in this respect.
Again, we should like to have some comment on the whole tie-up over the next 10 years between port authorities and some major corporations with new ideas. I think particularly of Lockheed and their one-atmosphere sub-sea completion systems. On another matter, some of us have met representatives of Lockheed within the last fortnight. As can be imagined, with the ending of the Vietnam

war they are only too anxious to get into the European market in one way or another. When firms like that come and offer whole systems, I hope that again there will be some clear thought by the Government about what the relationship should be between the incoming firms and the harbour developments. Co-ordination in this respect is extremely important, as the advisers to the Minister will have told him.
I gather that about 275 ships are required by 1980. There is a promising market for the builders of service vessels and standby ships needed to supply the increasing fleet of rigs which will be drilling at distances of more than 100 miles from the coast. These ships are relatively small—standby vessels and chaperoning vessels with facilities for helicopter takeoffs and landings. They are of trawler size and their construction does not demand particularly large or sophisticated yards. I should like to know what the Government will do, pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) and others in encouraging the building of these fairly simple and rather small vessels, which will have a vital part to play in the exploitation of the North Sea.
I cast some doubt on the question whether the emphasis that we had at Question Time today and on other occasions about the need to act urgently and quickly is necessarily right.
I end with the hope that some coherent policy can be announced fairly soon or, failing that, that administrative arrangements will be made to deal with the problem, or that some commission will be set up with powers to produce a coherent strategy, which is lacking at present.

2.6 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I start by thanking the hon. Member for West West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for the constructive and helpful way in which he introduced the debate.
This subject is of the most vital importance not only for Scotland—opening up the most exciting prospects; it is important for the whole of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member asked me many questions and I am sure that he will forgive me if, in the short time that I have, and at this hour, I do not delay too much. I apologise if I cannot deal with every one of the points that the hon. Member raised, because some involve a certain amount of detail. I want to deal with some of the more general points and also to pick up some of the particular ones.
I start with what the hon. Member said when he finished. He questioned whether the strategy of the Government was right in acting so quickly in relation to this development. He referred to this matter being raised at Question Time this afternoon. I believe that our strategy in this matter has been correct. It has been the strategy not only of my Government but of his Government as well.
It is worth reflecting that if we had not acted as resolutely and with such urgency as we did and as the previous Government did in initiating this project, some of the developments which have now taken place in the northern part of the North Sea might not have taken place at all at this time. It is fair to question whether we might not still simply be drilling for gas somewhere—perhaps off the Yorkshire coast—instead of having, in 1973, the most exciting prospects opened up for the North-East and North Coasts of Scotland. Therefore, I make no apology for the urgency and speed with which the Government have acted in exploiting this wonderful resource on our doorstep.
The second general point concerns the question of ministerial responsibility for this subject. The hon. Member must appreciate that I am answering this debate because the heading of this Supplementary Estimate—under which he has rightly sought to raise this matter—concerns harbour development of those harbours which are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland and are basically and initially fishery harbours. That is why, naturally and properly, they fall within my responsibility. The handling of matters relating to oil does not rest simply with my Department. It is also covered by various other Government Departments and in the Scottish Office my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development is

particularly involved, personally and through the Department, in co-ordinating and liaising on strategy and tactics for the development of this resource.
The way in which the Government have handled this is more of a strength than a weakness, because we have mobilised the total resources of the Scottish Office. Where there was expertise and knowledge which could be used to develop this resource it was used. To say that a number of Departments with different responsibilities and expertise have been brought into this does not mean that there has been a lack of liaison or strategy. We have mobilised many Government resources to ensure that we make the best use of the opportunities presented to us.
Those concerned with oil development are by no means dissatisfied with the service given by the Government. I was privileged to be present in Montrose when P and O announced its proposals and I was interested in the tribute which officials of the company paid to the Scottish Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of the Environment and the National Ports Council, for the assistance that had been given. It is a sign of the success of the Government's activities that so many Departments are involved. The liaison and co-ordination between them has been effective. I accept that it is something we will have to watch. It would be tragic if for any reason the speed of development, and its effectiveness, should founder for administrative reasons.
The hon. Member asked me about liaison between Government Departments and harbour authorities, which is an extension of the question of liaison between Government Departments. Officials of the National Ports Council and the Ports Division of the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Office work in close co-operation on port matters in Scotland. They also keep in close touch with the various port and harbour authorities concerned. It has recently been decided to strengthen the existing link between the Scottish Office and the Department of the Environment's Port Directorate by establishing a branch of the Directorate in Edinburgh. This is under the Ports Branch, which from February this year will be located in an office adjacent to


St. Andrew's House and which will be working even more closely with the various ports and the Scottish Office on the related infrastructure projects.
These new arrangements will be of particular value for North Sea oil development. A group of officials, including those from the National Ports Council, will be set up as a committee of the Scottish Economic Planning Board to keep port developments in Scotland under continuous review. I hope that this demonstrates that organisationally we are paying particular attention to the way in which we maintain proper liaison between Government Departments and port authorities.
The hon. Member asked about the Cromarty Firth. There are problems in the expansion of that area, and the rate of expansion represents a special problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) knows probably better than anyone. Pending the setting up of the new local government structure in the area, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development has appointed a co-ordinating committee of the existing local authorities which will deal with the planning and infrastructure problems throughout the area. I believe that this is the proper way to deal with it.
Returning to the general questions of liaison and strategy, it is obvious from what the hon. Gentleman has said that these arrangements inevitably require the co-ordination of a large number of departments and agencies. This is the very nature of the problem. I can sum it up best by saying that the main coordination is being achieved through the Scottish Economic Planning Board, which reports direct to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
In terms of the strategy of the development and the liaison between the different departments, I hope that I have demonstrated that we are alive to the problems and are resolving them. If we are to make the best use of the different types of expertise in the different departments, it is important that they are involved rather than necessarily centralised in some single organisation.
I turn now to some of the more detailed points raised by the hon. Member

for West Lothian. I mention first Peterhead Harbour. I agree that this is an appropriate moment at which to give a progress report on developments there.
As soon as the discoveries of oil in the North Sea revealed the potential of Peterhead Bay as a base for servicing oil rigs the Government lost no time in bringing before Parliament the Harbours Development (Scotland) Bill which was rushed through all its stages last July. This enabled plans to be drawn up and offers to be taken from companies interested in leasing the £2 million quay development that was planned in the southern part of the bay.
An agreement was signed in November with the Aberdeen Service Company (North Sea) Limited to use 22½ acres of quay space with a frontage of 1,500 feet. The company plans to develop an integrated base for servicing oil rigs, and construction of the quay is under way. Upwards of 200,000 ton of sand have been brought into the bay for reclamation work, and construction of the quay wall should begin in March. Contractors will have access to the reclaimed area as it is created with a view to the base being partially operational by mid-summer.
It is a tribute not only to the procedures of this House initially in getting the project off the ground but also to the speed with which construction activities have started that, within a year of the Bill being enacted, there is a prospect of this service facility at Peterhead being partially operational.
My Department is going ahead with discussions about other possible developments in the southern part of the bay, but it is too early yet to make any announcements.
On the north side of the bay, we have made considerable progress in negotiations with Arunta about its plans to construct warehouse facilities and a jetty for servicing oil rigs. This company is also planning to be in operation this summer. This is another demonstration of the way in which servicing companies and others connected with North Sea oil, in co-operation with the Government, are getting their plans into operation in a remarkably short time scale.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is taking steps to set up the necessary organisation for managing the developed harbour. As the hon. Member probably knows, we have appointed a small advisory committee under the chairmanship of Mr. J. C. Williamson of Aberdeen to advise on all aspects of the development, and arrangements are well in hand for appointing a full-time harbour manager. With the good offices of the trustees of Peterhead Fishery Harbour the services of their harbourmaster and other staff will also be available for managing the harbour.
One point I would mention, which the hon. Member also touched on, is the importance in relation to the environment and the importance to involve those people who are locally affected by the various developments. Regarding Peterhead, we have made considerable efforts to keep people informed of the proposals for development of the harbour of refuge. At a very early stage we held a public meeting at which our proposals were explained. I am glad to say that they received a general welcome. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also stated on several occasions that the amenity of the bay must, as far as practicable, be preserved. I believe that if adequate care is exercised by all those concerned, the amenity of the lido, about which people were rightly concerned, should not be adversely affected by the developments.
The hon. Member asked about Site Preparations, a company interested in developments at Peterhead. This company, along with others, had an opportunity of offering developments on the south side of the bay, but it did not choose to offer on terms acceptable to the Government. That is the position concerning that company.
Regarding the wider aspects of the environment, this has been made very clear to the oil companies and other industries involved. For example, the standing conference which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State established a year ago was reminded when it met recently at Inverness by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development about the importance which must be attached to environmental factors. The conference brings together representatives

over a very wide field and there is a very useful dissemination of information about arrangements in this respect.
Regarding liaison and the overall coordination of these developments, the hon. Gentleman should remember that virtually all of the oil development projects are in areas which are not zoned for development as approved in development plans. This means that the final decision has to be made by the Secretary of State. Therefore, so far as co-ordination and sensible planning throughout are concerned, around the long Scottish coastline, there is co-ordination through the planning machinery to make sure that a coherent and sensible strategy results from it.
I have dealt with most of the general points. I shall now very quickly deal with two or three particular detailed point, of which the hon. Gentleman very kindly and courteously gave me notice.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Lyness in Orkney and Scapa Flow. The present position is that a consortium of oil and drilling companies is negotiating with the Ministry of Defence for the lease of part of the existing facilities. Firm proposals have been put to the consortium, and a reply is currently awaited. I could not say more about that at this stage. It is very much in the hands of the consortium at present to respond to the proposals put to it.
The hon. Member also asked about various developments at Raasay. I take note of what he has said about coordination with the Ministry of Defence. I shall look further into that matter. The interesting thing about Raasay is perhaps not so much in relation to the Ministry of Defence but to the particular physical facilities which the entrance to Loch Carron and the Sound of Raasay offer. Interest has been shown in the area by a number of firms, at least one of which has shown serious interest, as an area in which it would be possible to build offshore oil production platforms in concrete. This is perhaps the most dramatic development which has been mooted so far as the Sound of Raasay is concerned, but I take note of the hon. Gentleman's point about co-ordination with the Royal Navy and about other developments in deep water technology.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the negotiations on the median line north of Zetland. No formal negotiations are in progress at the moment in respect of the waters north of the designated areas, but both Britain and Norway are looking at the possibility of extending the median line and designating blocks in more northerly waters.
I hope I have dealt with at any rate most of the points the hon. Gentleman raised. I do not know whether there is any particular point I have not answered.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not, I suppose, accuse the Minister of being complacent, for he has given me a very full answer, but if all this co-ordination is as good as he says it is why is it that we have Shetland going off for a provisional order, Orkney going off for a provisional order, Caithness setting up a study for good planning, Sutherland following suit, and Cromarty Firth wanting something else? They all have very genuine worries. Further south, there is concern about Queensferry and the Dalmeny terminal. How does all this fit in, coherently with the general planning? I am still rather uncomfortable about all this.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should still feel uncomfortable about it, but he must realise two things. First of all, as to the developments in different areas, obviously, in planning, there are procedures which in some places it may be necessary to go through, as, for example, in Shetland in relation to a provisional order; in other areas, the procedures will be the simple planning procedures. One has to look for a solution which is appropriate to the particular problems of the area concerned. Therefore, it is inevitable to some extent that the answers will not be uniform, and that orders which are put forward will not be all put forward at exactly the same time.
Secondly, and more important, many of these proposals are arising on different time scales. In just the same way as the development of exploration started in the southern part of the North Sea and there is a natural progression northwards, as technology develops the boundaries of exploration can be pushed farther out. It is for such reasons

that one is bound to get a varied rather than a uniform pattern in these developments. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that through the Development Department of the Scottish Office we are keeping a very strict co-ordinating line throughout all this development.
In conclusion, as I said earlier, it is Government policy to promote this exploration and the resources of the North Sea as rapidly as possible because, of course, those resources are so important to our balance of payments, so important to our economy as a whole. We simply must proceed as quickly as we can. I am not being complacent about it but I believe we have already achieved a considerable measure of success. We have already attracted to work in Scotland a very substantial proportion of the international expertise in this very difficult work of offshore drilling, and in only a few years we have established the existence of four commercial fields with six more fields under investigation.
It is as a result of this impressive record that we are seeing in Scotland the growth of important new industries and sources of employment. Already we can see firm prospects of over 7,000 jobs, with more to come. At the same time, we require, as I said a few moments ago—and it is very important—to keep a proper balance between these desirable industrial developments and the proper protection of the environment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear his determination to do this. For example, in the Moray Firth projects we have demonstrated how coordination can be achieved through the instrument of the Town and Country Planning Acts, and how the Acts can be used flexibly and sensibly. We have done this without too much frustration and without undue delay, which could be fatal if Scotland is to benefit from the enormous potential off our shores. I remind the House that we are investing all this money before a penny flows from the oil revenues and before any oil comes ashore. We have shown in our preparations that we are alive to the challenge and are taking advantage of it for the good of Scotland.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he introduced the debate. I apologise for dealing speedily and perhaps slightly superficially with some of his comments.


I shall read with great care the report of his speech in HANSARD. I take to heart what he said about the need for coordination and a proper approach. These are the very aims which we in the Scottish Office are determined to carry out.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Orders of the Day — RAILWAY POLICY

2.31 a.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this subject, although I am not particularly grateful for having to do so at this hour. I feel rather sorry for the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, because he is a constituency neighbour of mine, and also because, with the greatest respect to him, he is the wrong Minister. The points I shall raise are essentially Home Office points, and I am afraid that I shall get a "transport" answer. I am not saying that it will not be relevant, but I hope that the Minister will do me the courtesy of communicating some of my remarks to his hon. and right hon. Friends in the Home Office.
When I first tried to raise the matter of the leak of confidential information from the Department of the Environment, the publication of an article in the Sunday Times of 8th October and the raid on the Railway Gazette on 29th November, I had incredible difficulty in getting any information at all from the Government Front Bench.
By 11th December, almost two full weeks after the raid, although I had tabled four Private Notice Questions and a Written Question to the Attorney-General, and written a lengthy letter to the Prime Minister asking what was his Government's policy on the Official Secrets Act and whether he intended to use against the Railway Gazette either

the Theft Act or the Copyright Act, and despite correspondence between the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, no real information had been given a fortnight after the raid took place.
All we have been told—and I suppose that this is what the hon. Gentleman will tell the House tonight—is that the Department of the Environment passed the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who then, properly, passed it to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
On 12th December the Prime Minister made his first statement. He said that if the Department of the Environment had not done that it could possibly have been accused of being negligent. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition tried to be helpful on that occasion, but even by 20th December, two days before the House adjourned for the Christmas Recess, no information had been forthcoming.
By that time I had tabled further parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Attorney-General and the Leader of the House. I had received no information, even in reply to a letter which I wrote to the Home Secretary on 18th December asking him about my suspicions on telephone tapping and blackmail in connection with police inquiries.
By the time the House was due to adjourn for Christmas, three weeks after the raid took place, the House was none the wiser because the Government kept very tight-lipped. This happened amidst growing newspaper speculation about telephone tapping and the whole philosophy of the present Government towards the Press.
Thus it was that on 22nd December, the day the House adjourned for Christmas, a Written Reply was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke)—a Member who, up until that time, had taken not the slightest interest in the matter. I can only conclude that he did not table that Written Question of his own accord.
When the Home Secretary said that no threats had been used by the police and that telephone tapping was in accordance with the recommendations of the


Birkett Committee in 1957, I must emphasise that that was the first information this House had received in detail about these investigations. In other words, we had a situation where, getting on for four weeks after the raid took place, this House had still not been told why the raid had taken place and what method was used.
I also wish to point out that precisely the same Question as asked by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen just before Christmas was debarred to me several times by the Table Office. I was told that such a question was not a matter for the Home Secretary. I should like to know—and I shall be pursuing this matter later—why the hon. and learned Member, who had not up to that point taken the slightest interest in the case, was allowed to ask that Question and to be given a reply.
On the same day Scotland Yard announced that a complaint had been made about police conduct. We still do not know who made that complaint. I can only conclude that the Government saw the light and thought that they could not hope to win a case on those grounds. Therefore, an investigation was undertaken into the conduct of the Metropolitan Police. That inquiry is still taking place because the solicitors representing Richard Hope, the editor of the Railway Gazette, have advised him, now that the charges have been dropped, to go ahead if he wants to co-operate.
On 30th December, a full month after the raid took place, the Prime Minister, in reply to a letter which I had written to him three weeks earlier, was still denying responsibility and simply passing the buck to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Metropolitan Police. I can only conclude that this incredible secrecy and withholding of information from this House was simply because the Railway Gazette and the Sunday Times had stumbled on the truth. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take note of the fact that it was in May 1970 that Chapman Pincher in the Daily Express was saying almost the same thing as the Sunday Times said on 8th October last—and indeed the Chairman of the British Railways Board was saying more or less the same thing in August last year.
Could it be that, instead of having unearthed one of a number of alternatives in the Department of the Environment, the Railway Gazette and the Sunday Times had unearthed and brought to light the mainstream of departmental thought about British Railways' future? I hope the hon. Gentleman will say something about that aspect of the matter when he replies to the debate.
We have still had no specific denial from the Government that the telephone conversation which I had with the editor of the Railway Gazette on the morning of 1st December was tapped. I hope that when Detective Chief Inspector Edwards completes his investigation into police conduct we shall receive a specific denial that that telephone conversation was tapped. I also hope that we shall get a denial that the telephones of Richard Hope, Christopher Bushell and Ian Yearsley were tapped. Despite the assurance by the Home Office, the House has still heard of no authorisation for this. It has not been discussed; it has not been put forward. We still have not been told that these telephones were definitely not tapped. I hope that when the police report is available this will be so.
We see from paragraph 141 of the Birkett Committee's Report in 1957 that telephone tapping might be necessary for the security service to assist in
protection from espionage, from sabotage, and indeed from every kind of action that threatens the security of the State.
Paragraphs 142 and 143 of the Birkett Committee's Report talk about telephone tapping perhaps being necessary in the context of serious crime
organised and carried out by professional criminals who want to make a great deal of money and would not think of making it in any other way than by crime, at the expense of their fellow citizens.
Whatever happened in connection with that leak, whatever happened in connection with the Sunday Times and the Railway Gazette, I do not think that anybody who was possibly involved in that could be accused of falling within the context of paragraphs 141, 142 or 143 of the Birkett Committee's Report. I can only conclude that if telephone tapping was used—I hope that we shall have a specific denial—it will be brought to light, because to my mind this whole incident


falls very much outside the Birkett Committee's recommendations.
I will not mention tonight, because of time, the techniques of the police in questioning Christopher Bushell. They said to him, when they called at his house on 4th December, that it would be a pity if some of his friends to whom he had spoken recently were to be implicated. That may be part of normal police questioning techniques—I am not arguing about that at this moment, although I might question it later—but it certainly seems to me an indication of the pressure put on the officers to reach a speedy conclusion. So, even if the hon. Gentleman cannot answer my points on the conduct of the inquiry, I hope he will pass them on to the Home Secretary.
Above all, I want to raise the possibility, which has still not been denied, of the Government trying to use either the Theft Act or the Copyright Act in place of the Official Secrets Act. The Official Secrets Act is a blunderbuss weapon; it is a sledge-hammer weapon. It causes long court cases and lots of embarrassment.
Were the Government tempted to use the Theft Act or the Copyright Act? Were they taking note of the obiter dicta in the case of Norah Beloff v. Private Eye where the late Mr. Justice UngoedThomas said that publication of leaked documents was not "fair dealing" and no defence against a copyright action? Did the Government take notice of the fact that he said that the public interest had a narrow meaning in being restricted to
misdeeds of a serious nature relating to the country and clearly recognisable as such"?
If the Government had taken note of the obiter dicta in that case they may have come to the conclusion that using the Copyright Act instead of the Official Secrets Act against the Railway Gazette or possibly the Sunday Times was a more convenient and subtle weapon because they could have sued for civil damages and, apart from that, applied criminal penalties. If the Government were considering using the Theft Act or the Copyright Act in this way, that would involve some notion that knowledge about the Government is Government property. That is a very dangerous notion indeed. It certainly threatens the mechanics of journalism and the way that journalists work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman,

even if he cannot say anything about this matter tonight, will pass it on to the Home Secretary, because to my mind we had a serious threat to the freedom of the Press and the way that the Press works in this country. I am still not satisfied with the answers or the information that I have received.
In many instances this has been called "Britain's mini-'Pentagon papers' scandal. It has even been called "Britain's Der Spiegel scandal". We are not talking about the location of "Regional Seats of Government", about Britain's pre-emptive nuclear strike capacity or about Britain's critically secret defence plans; we are talking about the future railway network, and that involves the livelihood, the careers and the travelling patterns of millions of people throughout the country.
If we are going to have any decisions taken about the future of the railway network, they should not be taken by the railway hawks in the hon. Gentleman's Department, which I suspect had pretty well made up its mind before the leak took place. Such decisions should not be taken because of the commercial exigencies of the board of British Rail. Above all, these decisions should be taken by the people of this country.
Instead of clobbering people like Richard Hope, who was writing about the future fates of the railway long before the leak took place in his articles in the Railway Gazette, and who for many years has done sterling service in bringing to light the difficult financial circumstances of the railway, and instead of clobbering Harold Evans, the editor of the Sunday Times, this House and, indeed, the country, should give all praise where it is due. Without publication in the Sunday Times the country would not have known the truth. There could easily have been a situation where the country would have had foisted upon it a castrated railway map. Because of the leak interest has once against been stimulated in the future of the railway system. The interest of the people has been stimulated. After all, it is their railway system, and only they should have the right to decide its future.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie


Huckfield), who has raised this important matter, is a constituency neighbour of mine, and, apart from our political differences, a personal friend. Nevertheless, I am bound to tell him that although he has raised some fundamental and important matters, the essence of which I will communicate to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, he strayed a long way, during the latter part of his speech about the railways, from his usual standards of common sense.
The first issue, and the main part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, is the conduct of the investigation into the loss of the document and the subsequent publicity about which the hon. Gentleman has expressed such concern.
It is, of course, a common feature of Government practice that certain documents are given a security classification in order to safeguard their contents from premature disclosure which could be harmful to the interests of the State. The document which was the subject of the Sunday Times article on 8th October last year was classified in this way, and as a first step an internal inquiry was very properly instituted into how it had been taken from the Department's offices. This showed that one particular copy was missing, and, as a criminal offence might therefore have been committed, the results of the Department's own inquiry were submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who then instructed the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis to make inquiries.
Neither I and my ministerial colleagues nor members of my Department took any part in, or in any way interfered with, these inquiries; indeed, it would have been most improper for us to have done so. The inquiries were entirely a matter for the Commissioner of Police to conduct as he thought fit. There was no question of passing the buck. The hon. Gentleman will now doubtless be aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised that there is insufficient evidence to prefer charges, although there is some evidence of theft.
I take up the story of the Official Secrets Act. No prosecution is being undertaken under that Act in respect of any incident arising from the loss of the document and the subsequent publicity,

and that particular matter can now be regarded as closed. As regards the future, I cannot say more than that, as already announced, the Government are considering the recommendations of the Franks Committee.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned telephone tapping, and this is, as he indicated, properly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman knows from the reply that was given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) on 22nd December, and I am assured by my right hon. Friend, that there is no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament.
I now turn, because it is germane to what we are debating, to the underlying question of the work which the Department and the Railways Board have been doing about the finances of the railways, their prospects for the future and the very real problems which make it so difficult for the railways to compete with other forms of transport in all industrialised countries today.
There is a long history to the problem of the railways. It is not just financial. There are the underlying difficulties of competition for the road users, bearing in mind that there are more than 200,000 miles of road in this country compared with about 11,500 route miles of railways. This gives the road user a much better chance of completing his journey in one stage.
The first major attempt to treat the problem of the railways on a national scale was in 1962. Legislation gave them complete commercial freedom, wrote off £487 million of their debts and suspended their liability to pay interest on a further £1,262 million. In addition, powers were taken to pay revenue deficit grants, which eventually came to over £800 million. A further attempt was made in the 1968 Transport Act of the previous administration which distinguished the social services provided by the railways. The Government were enabled to pay grants for unremunerative passenger services, capital grants for infrastructure in urban areas, research and grants for costs associated with work on track and signalling. These grants have now reached about £88 million a year. The Government also wrote off £1,262 million more debt.
Unfortunately, even this considerable support was not enough, and, as my right hon. Friend informed the House on 27th July last year, there was a further deterioration in the railways' finances which led the Railways Board to forecast a deficit of about £40 million in 1972, even after taking into its accounts the substantial assistance that I have just mentioned.
I have given this brief rundown of the very serious policy and financial problems of the railways in order that the House should fully appreciate the need for studies and investigations to be made of existing policies to see whether there is any hope of improvement through changes in organisation, business plans or retrenchment. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries asked the board for its part to review its long-term problems and prospects and to report to him, while the Department made parallel studies aimed at identifying the areas where the Government could take action which might assist in the establishment of a stable, long-term railway network.
The report which was leaked to the Sunday Times was, in fact, one of these interim internal studies prepared by officials as a contribution towards the development of policy. It was no more and no less than that. It was certainly not a study by Ministers or by their senior advisers, but a study by middle management of one of a series of options. I should point out that its contents were grossly distorted in the course of selecting parts of it for publicity. It did not, in fact, make specific proposals for reduction of the railway network, and the map which the Sunday Times published was pure speculative artistry. The hon. Gentleman spoke about policy being determined by hawks in my Department. I think that I shall be able to say a few things that will reassure him on that.
This Government's record as regards railway closures, looked at from the point of view of those who wish to continue to support a large railway system, is extremely good. As recently as 23rd January, only a few days ago——

Mr. Huckfield: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the issue of the Sunday Times, will he confirm that there was a remarkable degree of similarity between the kind of report that Chapman Pincher

produced about the future of the railway system in May 1970 in the Daily Express, which again emanated perhaps from certain reports in the Department, and the kind of forecast that was made by the Chairman of the British Railways Board last August?

Mr. Speed: No. I have explained to the hon. Gentleman that that was one of a whole series of papers covering an extremely wide range of options. It would be wrong of me to comment on papers that may or may not have come from the Department under a previous administration. We do not even see them. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman the situation as I see it now. With my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries, I am jointly responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for rail policy.
As my right hon. Friend told the House, he renewed all the grant undertakings for loss-making passenger services which fell due for renewal at the end of 1972. These amounted in all to 122 specific services as well as the London commuter network as a whole. There are currently only five services proposed for the closure machinery, none of them intensively used.
In all, during the 2½ years this Government have been in office we have consented to the closure of well under 300 miles of railway line, a total which compares very favourably with the 2,680 miles closed by the last Government.
In the circumstances, I think the House will agree that it is a matter for great regret that the publication of a confidential working document, completely out of context, should have given rise to so much widespread and unnecessary anxiety. Having received many letters from hon. Members and members of the public and railwaymen, I know that it has caused great and unnecessary distress.
I now turn to the issue of whether the work which the Railways Board and the Department are undertaking should be conducted in public, coupled with the point of whether the Department was right to classify the leaked document as confidential. Of course, there must be full public discussion of the kind of railway system we want for the future, of how this is to be achieved and what it


will cost. I know that my right hon. Friend is anxious that the options should be put before Parliament as soon as the work has progressed sufficiently to enable him to do so in a sensible way. But it is in no one's interest that public discussion should take place before the very complex analysis and forecasts which are needed are carried out and the consequences—social, economic and environmental, as well as financial—of the various possible courses of action of future railway policy are properly assessed.
There is the not unimportant point that the railways are a business which need to protect their commercial interests against their competitors. There is therefore a limit on the extent to which they can reveal their business calculations if their financial prospects are not to be unnecessarily jeopardised.
As for whether the Department was right to classify the leaked document as confidential, the widespread anxiety which its publication has caused to the travelling public, to the industry and railway staff themselves, leads me to believe that it was.
In our constituency files we all have information that certainly for a period we regard as confidential. I have, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has, information and letters which at a certain point in time we would not wish to reveal to the Press, because it might he completely out of context.
It is too early to say when the great deal of work that is progressing will be completed and the results put before Parliament. I can certainly repeat the assurance my right hon. Friend has already given that a full statement will be made to Parliament as soon as possible and that there will be ample opportunity for public discussion before any new legislation which may be desirable in the Government's view is enacted.
Finally, I remind the House of the positive support the Government have given to public transport projects in specific fields. The broad measure of the grants to British Rail, amounting to about £100 million, together with the extra money to meet the cash shortfall, mean that last year a total of £140 million was given to British Rail. In addition,

we are allowing British Rail to invest at the rate of £100 million a year in the replacement and development of its system. In any comparison with the much larger total of investment on the road system it needs to be borne in mind that the highway network is some 20 times larger than the rail network, as I have described. In the light of that £140 million plus £100 million, I do not think that we can be accused of starving the railways.
We believe that the railways have a continuing rôle for the future, especially through their ability to carry people rapidly over long distances and to move large numbers of people in urban areas. We recently agreed to the provision of a rapid transit system on Tyneside, costing in all some £65 million, of which the Government would provide £50 million.
The railways will continue to constitute an important element in any new transport policy which may be adopted. I hope that I have brought out the various factors which need to be kept in perspective. There is no simple answer to this problem. All the various factors in relation to the future of our railways system must be properly considered and analysed. Superficial solutions, however apparently attractive, are not the answer. We are determined to get the right solution, and to put our proposals to Parliament and the public to solve a problem which has not been solved by any Government since the war.
I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that no firm decisions are yet taken. We shall come to Parliament and the public when we have finished our consideration and reached conclusions. We cannot be rushed in this matter. I regard this whole episode as extremely unfortunate, certainly not in the interests of the railways, and not in the interests of all those who, like myself, and, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman, wish to reach the right solution.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at one minute past Three o'clock a.m.